Page 474 of 491 FirstFirst ... 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 ... LastLast
Results 11,826 to 11,850 of 12265
  1. #11826
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by theetruscan View Post
    pretty sure you will die.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Damn, I didnít know it was that easy! I guess I can stop dry firing my glock into my mouth at night for practice and start bumping all my mounts forward instead!


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  2. #11827
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by BeHuWe View Post
    Damn, I didnít know it was that easy! I guess I can stop dry firing my glock into my mouth at night for practice and start bumping all my mounts forward instead!
    I really donít want to get in the way of your other hobbiesÖ

  3. #11828
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    Southern Oregon
    Posts
    6
    "I’ve really been liking directional skis with some tail rocker that I can just mount at +1/+2. Just so I can get a ski that I don’t out muscle (not saying I’m some amazing skier but most freestyle skis don’t have a lot of backbone)."

    BeHuWe,

    Check out the IggySkier post from 02-24-2020 - it will have the info regarding comfortable range of mounts that kid-kapow mentioned.

    FWIW, I have '20 Woodsman 116s in 187cm and I love them and love where the suggested mount is at (-6.75cm back from center I believe). I was at Mammoth for some early season turns a couple weeks ago and ended up using the WD 116s all three days because they handled all the conditions I faced (ice, firm, spring-like conditions, 2-4 inches of super wet snow that frightened all the locals) so much better than my Salomon QST 106s (mostly just used for touring) or my Salomon Rocker^2 100s.

    I will be replacing the beat-to-shit Rocker2 100s with some WD 102s in 187 length sometime in the next month. I absolutely plan on mounting them at the "old" Woodsman mount point, so roughly +1.25cm from current recommended. Can't wait for something damp, yet playful and chargy to use as my PNW low-tide ski. Salomon Rocker2s were/are fun, but got reeeeally tired of them being too noodly to handle less-than-ideal firm conditions in the PNW. Similarly, scared myself with them one too many times charging off the summit at Mt Bachelor and finding their speed limited quite promptly (even in nice spring conditions).

  4. #11829
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,446
    Quote Originally Posted by ScarffnBarff View Post
    I will be replacing the beat-to-shit Rocker2 100s with some WD 102s in 187 length sometime in the next month. I absolutely plan on mounting them at the "old" Woodsman mount point, so roughly +1.25cm from current recommended.
    just keep in mind that the mount point did not move back as such - meaning it did not move back relative to the ski's geometry, the geometry was changed to be aligned with a slightly more set back mount point. So by going forward of rec you would be going forward of where the flex pattern and sidecut is designed for you to be, you do not go back to the OG spot

    Will it make a huge difference? Probably not, so if you prefer them to be more forward for a more balanced in a air feel and the easier turn initiation / feeling to be ahead of the sidecut you sometimes get by going forward you could do that no problem - though again, I went rec with mine and expect them to be great there

    Nice to hear that you love your woods116s too - can't wait to ski mine more and will perhaps retune the aft section of the sidecut a bit - time will tell

    edit: oh yes, the Jeff110 graphic is official now. I think these will pop like crazy on snow and is def a correct choice if you want a fast ski - aka the red one.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Skjermbilde 2021-11-24 kl. 14.23.28.jpg 
Views:	132 
Size:	327.5 KB 
ID:	393816

    They would def have been hard to pass up when deciding graphics for my new travel quiver. I am super happy with ones I got though, so just as well that i did not have these to choose from as well
    Last edited by kid-kapow; 11-24-2021 at 07:30 AM.

  5. #11830
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    24
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1551.jpg 
Views:	140 
Size:	1.22 MB 
ID:	393895
    The quiver is complete. Excited to get the BG 110 tour on snow!


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  6. #11831
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,446
    Quote Originally Posted by on3pbg View Post
    The quiver is complete. Excited to get the BG 110 tour on snow!
    Killer quiver man!

    Something else that is nice;
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	259781927_4773870699364137_3021445016821687260_n.jpg 
Views:	168 
Size:	151.5 KB 
ID:	393897

  7. #11832
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by ScarffnBarff View Post
    BeHuWe,

    Check out the IggySkier post from 02-24-2020 - it will have the info regarding comfortable range of mounts that kid-kapow mentioned.
    Thank you for this.




    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  8. #11833
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    Southern Oregon
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    just keep in mind that the mount point did not move back as such - meaning it did not move back relative to the ski's geometry, the geometry was changed to be aligned with a slightly more set back mount point. So by going forward of rec you would be going forward of where the flex pattern and sidecut is designed for you to be, you do not go back to the OG spot

    Will it make a huge difference? Probably not, so if you prefer them to be more forward for a more balanced in a air feel and the easier turn initiation / feeling to be ahead of the sidecut you sometimes get by going forward you could do that no problem - though again, I went rec with mine and expect them to be great there
    Kid-kapow - thank you very much for your insightful reply. I am quite reluctant to to question your comment because you obviously have way more knowledge than me about ON3P and ski geometry in general. That being said, is your comment about changing the geometry as opposed to changing just the mount true? My emails with ON3P and the specs on the skis seem to suggest otherwise, but I realize I might have misunderstood. Can you provide additional information regarding change in mount point vs change in geometry to accommodate different mount point?

    Thanks again for your reply and I look forward to your response to this post.

    By the way, you hit the nail on the head in terms of my desire to feel a smidge more balanced in the air and have easier turn initiation. If it weren't for the Woodsman line, I would probably be in the group of folks struggling a bit of the Jeffrey or moving the mount point back some. I almost never land switch/hit natural features switch (or at least not intentionally), but like to mix it up between a playful skiing style and charging hard directionally. Most of my switch skiing is done in a casually goofing off manner or helping my niece and nephew learn.

  9. #11834
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    7,370
    Quote Originally Posted by ScarffnBarff View Post
    That being said, is your comment about changing the geometry as opposed to changing just the mount true? My emails with ON3P and the specs on the skis seem to suggest otherwise, but I realize I might have misunderstood. Can you provide additional information regarding change in mount point vs change in geometry to accommodate different mount point?
    Yes, this is true. When ON3P changed the recommended mount point on the Woodsman, they also changed the core profile and the sidecut geometry to match the new mount point. You can search through Iggy's post history yourself to find it, and in case it wasn't clear, Iggy is the owner of ON3P so an extremely definitive source.

  10. #11835
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    Southern Oregon
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    Yes, this is true. When ON3P changed the recommended mount point on the Woodsman, they also changed the core profile and the sidecut geometry to match the new mount point. You can search through Iggy's post history yourself to find it, and in case it wasn't clear, Iggy is the owner of ON3P so an extremely definitive source.
    Yep, well aware of Iggy's identity. Thanks for the heads up about the post you are referencing - I found it and I see what ya'll are talking about. Must have missed that post when I first scoured this forum for all the Woodsman info I could find and I guess I misunderstood some of the email correspondence I had with Scott or whoever else answers some of their emails.

    Thanks for your response.

  11. #11836
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,446
    yeah, I was referring to three or some such of Iggy's posts and I think it was Norseman who wrote a couple of posts providing info on the changes made as the woods108 became the new Woods110. His posts were based on talking directly to Iggy I could have misunderstood the posts, but the message has been pretty consistent across all.

    ON3P do lots of small tweaks and refinements, usually in a two year cycle, but often every season too. A lot of thought and refinement has gone into these shapes.

    The post talking about changes from year 1 to year 2 woods
    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.
    The mount range post was specified above wrt date if not post number / link - aka this, to make new readers aware of it

    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    Oh my apologies. I get it. That is the range of the actual design as it varies by size. Outside of the Magnus 90/102 - because park kids don't listen to what we say anyway - mounts scale by size so the skis are proportional to length (ie. a 181cm Jeffrey 108 has a mount that is -4.00cm along the skis flat length, but the 186cm Jeffrey 108 increases to -4.25cm).

    If we are talking in terms of movement from recommended, my fully-comfortable-if-it-fits-your-style would be:

    Magnus 90 = +0 /- 2cm
    Magnus 102 = +/- 2cm
    Jeffrey/Jessie = +/- 2cm (a ton of people are skiing Jeffreys +4cm which pains me)
    Woodsman = +1cm / -2cm
    BG/CD/Wren= +/- 1cm (yes, we always say RES on the line, but obviously being slightly off the line isn't going to kill you if you have to due to boot change or remount)

    Edit to add - if you have to ask where to mount, answer most likely on the line.
    keep in mind that these are referring to 2020 skis, though I imagine that the advice is more or less the same now.

    Iggy's posts are a treasure trove of info wrt ON3P, so going through them if there is something you wonder about is always a good idea

  12. #11837
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,192

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Image1637854556.229296.jpg 
Views:	162 
Size:	180.5 KB 
ID:	393999

    All in the familyÖ. Started with the first OG 191 Wrena when Iggy opened upÖ. When I saw the 102tiís on website I could not resistÖ. 191 112 Wren, 189 108 Wren (so far the best one ski quiver and makes the best travel ski), 189 102ti, and 189 98 WrenÖ

    And has been said a 1,000 times the shots of the skis on the website do not do them justiceÖ


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR ForumsClick image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1777.JPG 
Views:	163 
Size:	144.9 KB 
ID:	394000

  13. #11838
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,446
    Holy crap Undertow - those look amazing.

    I don't know how the Wren graphics get better, but somehow they do while keeping it real wrt old models as well. I thought peak Wren graphic was reached with the first wren96ti, but no - this year's wren102ti and wren110pros are simply amazing.

  14. #11839
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    On the mountain
    Posts
    666
    A good friend caved and ordered some Billy Goat 110ís last night. He went the custom route and opted for the 50/50 layup. These will be his Resort skis, but at least I finally got him to bite and buy quality skis for once. 4th friend to see the light and ride skis made for where we ski, made in the place we all live, by folks who ride our mountain too.

  15. #11840
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Emerald City
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by MHSP1497 View Post
    A good friend caved and ordered some Billy Goat 110ís last night. He went the custom route and opted for the 50/50 layup. These will be his Resort skis, but at least I finally got him to bite and buy quality skis for once. 4th friend to see the light and ride skis made for where we ski, made in the place we all live, by folks who ride our mountain too.
    Nice! I convinced my buddy to pick up some second hand Billy goats this fall, can't wait to see his reaction getting them on some pow this season.

  16. #11841
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,292
    I have my custom 192 BG118 order in but now I'm trying to decide if I swap to a 50/50 core. Will be used 80% at Alpental/Crystal and 20% touring (I hope). Will be mounting with P15 Cast set up if I do 50/50. Would I be missing the extra heft when I'm skiing chairs?

  17. #11842
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,446
    Quote Originally Posted by phatty View Post
    I have my custom 192 BG118 order in but now I'm trying to decide if I swap to a 50/50 core. Will be used 80% at Alpental/Crystal and 20% touring (I hope). Will be mounting with P15 Cast set up if I do 50/50. Would I be missing the extra heft when I'm skiing chairs?
    It is a bit of a conundrum for sure.

    On one side I would perhaps optimize the setup for the 80% of the time if you decide to mount Casts, not reduce their awesome capability where they are the best aka variable for the 20%.

    On the other, 192 50/50 BGs will be no featherweight weakling even at 200gr off pr ski, so they should still ski awesomely.

    So perhaps it is one of those times that where if you are in doubt, then you are not - just go for 50/50 + Cast for added versatility.

    At the end of the day though the 200gr a foot weight save is nice when going uphill, but you are not going to win any races to the top with either layup + Cast. So perhaps a middle ground is the get the stock version and mount Cast on those, and then - if you end up touring a lot >20% then you could optimize the rest of the setup for weight and then possibly get a lighter verion of the ski at a later date.

    Sorry about the flip flopping answer here. For reference - I went with stock+Cast for my resort skis that get the occasional tour, 50/50 + Tectons for my travel skis that need to be ready for both big days out touring and resort days.

  18. #11843
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    4,207
    Quote Originally Posted by phatty View Post
    I have my custom 192 BG118 order in but now I'm trying to decide if I swap to a 50/50 core. Will be used 80% at Alpental/Crystal and 20% touring (I hope). Will be mounting with P15 Cast set up if I do 50/50. Would I be missing the extra heft when I'm skiing chairs?
    Put the CAST on you MF108ís and stick with a stock core BG118.

    Your current 191 BGís are really heavy being veneers. Mass is definitely one of the things that makes them special, especially in Western WA. And you arenít a little guy, so there is that factor, too.

    Or go with the 50/50 core and Iíll get ready for the ďthey just donít handle inbounds as well as my old veneersĒ conversation about January.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  19. #11844
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by phatty View Post
    I have my custom 192 BG118 order in but now I'm trying to decide if I swap to a 50/50 core. Will be used 80% at Alpental/Crystal and 20% touring (I hope). Will be mounting with P15 Cast set up if I do 50/50. Would I be missing the extra heft when I'm skiing chairs?
    The C&D is a 50/50 layup stock and I wouldn't want any extra mass on my 189s (inbounds only). If you're a super mega charger then go stock core, but otherwise the 50/50 will probably be plenty for inbounds and touring.

  20. #11845
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    4,207
    Quote Originally Posted by TeleBeaver View Post
    The C&D is a 50/50 layup stock and I wouldn't want any extra mass on my 189s (inbounds only). If you're a super mega charger then go stock core, but otherwise the 50/50 will probably be plenty for inbounds and touring.
    C&D is Tour Layup. The 189 weighs a tad less (~2400-grams) than the stock 192 BG118 (~2430-grams) per ON3P. His 191ís are over 2,500 grams. With the veneer topsheets, Iíd bet closer to 2,600.

    Itís just physics here in the PNW. A 2,200-gram BG wonít perform inbounds like a 2,500 or 2,600-gram BG.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  21. #11846
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    C&D is Tour Layup. The 189 weighs a tad less (~2400-grams) than the stock 192 BG118 (~2430-grams) per ON3P. His 191ís are over 2,500 grams. With the veneer topsheets, Iíd bet closer to 2,600.

    Itís just physics here in the PNW. A 2,200-gram BG wonít perform inbounds like a 2,500 or 2,600-gram BG.
    I though 50/50 was the tour layup with heavy base and edge (which is what the C&D has) but I could be mistaken. They do weigh almost exactly 2400g per my scale. They are beasts to swing around for me, and in Utah snow they have plenty of mass but if he is already skiing 2600g goats then I guess dropping down to 2200g would be a big drop in stability.

  22. #11847
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    4,207
    Quote Originally Posted by TeleBeaver View Post
    I though 50/50 was the tour layup with heavy base and edge (which is what the C&D has) but I could be mistaken. They do weigh almost exactly 2400g per my scale. They are beasts to swing around for me, and in Utah snow they have plenty of mass but if he is already skiing 2600g goats then I guess dropping down to 2200g would be a big drop in stability.
    Iím on the same page as you. I donít think I would want or need something as heavy as a C&D if I lived in UT. Iíd probably be happy with something like a Rustler 11 since the snow is magically different than what we get in WA.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  23. #11848
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,446
    Quote Originally Posted by TeleBeaver View Post
    I though 50/50 was the tour layup with heavy base and edge (which is what the C&D has) but I could be mistaken. They do weigh almost exactly 2400g per my scale. They are beasts to swing around for me, and in Utah snow they have plenty of mass but if he is already skiing 2600g goats then I guess dropping down to 2200g would be a big drop in stability.
    I think the current crop of C&Ds still have the old tour layup, so a slightly milled down full bamboo core with 19oz glass + carbon strip + full on edges/bases - so not the new tour layup with the new core and the new glass+carbon mix.

    So yeah, it could be that they end up weighing something similar to the new 50/50 layup, just with a tad rounder flex and slightly damper ride than 50/50.

    I can't wait to see what Iggy has up his sleeve for the next iteration of the C&D. I think the ones on the site (half of last year's run or some such) are the last they will produce (outside of custom) before a new rendition is released sometime in the future (no inications that it is imminent). I would not be surprised if it is made into an even more soft snow specific shape again with the BG going wider, but it will be hard to improve on the current version imho - I think that is a fantastic deep pow ski. A lighter version of the current gen in the new 50/50 or new tour layup could be killer pow ski for drier/lighter/japow snow or for touring though - like amazingly awesome. Who knows, perhaps a run of Pillow Fights are on the horizon come the dumping part of the season / after all the customs from the custom sale have been made? I have no idea.

  24. #11849
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    C&D is Tour Layup. The 189 weighs a tad less (~2400-grams) than the stock 192 BG118 (~2430-grams) per ON3P. His 191ís are over 2,500 grams. With the veneer topsheets, Iíd bet closer to 2,600.

    Itís just physics here in the PNW. A 2,200-gram BG wonít perform inbounds like a 2,500 or 2,600-gram BG.
    I only started thinking about it after reading Iggy say most of their employees have switched to the 50/50. Plus, who am I kidding. I'm rarely going to tour. I'll just suck it up and get stronger and take the standard BG118.

  25. #11850
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    4,207
    Quote Originally Posted by phatty View Post
    I only started thinking about it after reading Iggy say most of their employees have switched to the 50/50. Plus, who am I kidding. I'm rarely going to tour. I'll just suck it up and get stronger and take the standard BG118.
    All I know is this, I have the current C&D in a 189. It floats better than my 189 BGís but it doesnít crush mank and crud the same way. You are a bigger dude than me. I donít see how going with the lighter core really does anything for you, especially as an Alpy skier.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

Posting Permissions

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