Page 296 of 303 FirstFirst ... 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 ... LastLast
Results 7,376 to 7,400 of 7559
  1. #7376
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    quietly bitching
    Seriously, this can’t turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  2. #7377
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Driving2VT
    Posts
    3,245
    182cm Woodsman 96 protos getting ready for snow..... giddiup

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1751.JPG 
Views:	128 
Size:	240.3 KB 
ID:	302701
    Uno mas

  3. #7378
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,800
    I mean always from a position of respect... no intention to slaag the brand in the least. But I haven't lied about why I sold my Steeples, either.

    Ok, now I STFU
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  4. #7379
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,273
    adding my 2 cents to the growing pile:

    BG, 189cm, 1800g max. no bamboo.
    The Charmed app lets you tinder for your friends

  5. #7380
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,191
    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    adding my 2 cents to the growing pile:

    BG, 189cm, 1800g max. no bamboo.
    Now THAT's a concept I could buy in to (@184, however).

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  6. #7381
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    211
    I think 2000g-2100g would be fine if they performed well. I'm happy to save a bit of weight on bindings and work a little harder if they ski great. You can get in better shape but you can't fix a ski that's made compromises.

  7. #7382
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Tailwind View Post
    I think 2000g-2100g would be fine if they performed well. I'm happy to save a bit of weight on bindings and work a little harder if they ski great. You can get in better shape but you can't fix a ski that's made compromises.
    Iggy's a smart guy, and there are enough 2000 gm skis out there that work quite nicely in BC snow ... at least that's my uninformed opinion ;-)

    ... Thom
    Galibier Design
    crafting technology in service of music

  8. #7383
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    211
    I can agree with that.

    I think my fear is always that you chase weight in order to make the specs look good online go further than you out to have. But to your point, Moment’s tour cores ski great in BC snow and they’re around 1800 grams.

    An Billy Goat built with similar construction to a Wildcat tour would be pretty incredible.

    Quote Originally Posted by galibier_numero_un View Post
    Iggy's a smart guy, and there are enough 2000 gm skis out there that work quite nicely in BC snow ... at least that's my uninformed opinion ;-)

    ... Thom

  9. #7384
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,800
    Skis are lookin fine.

    Name:  Screenshot_20191118-072430_Instagram.jpeg
Views: 305
Size:  41.9 KB
    Last edited by Norseman; 11-18-2019 at 10:01 AM.
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  10. #7385
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,273
    Problem > Solution. You can make a ski no one wants and force it down throats, but sales will taper after the hype does. That’s a solution looking for a problem. Iggy knows this.

    There’s tons of 2000g skis as galib mentioned. There’s even tons of 1800g skis.

    but there are few 1800g skis that are shaped to handle BC snow and execute. The ones that do have a strong following, year over year.

    The problem with 2000g skis nowadays isn’t so much the weight, it’s that there are comparable options that weigh less. When we had to pick between a 2100g ski and a terrible 1800g ski, myself included picked the 2100g ski. And was immediately annoyed.

    I just won’t buy a touring ski over 1800g anymore. There are too many other good options. There’s room easily for a “best” option at 1800g, aka a BG, but not room for a touring ski at 2000g.

    calling a 2000g ski a touring ski is a misnomer. It’s just an inbounds oriented lighter core version of the stock setup at that weight.
    The Charmed app lets you tinder for your friends

  11. #7386
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,800
    ^ Yep
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  12. #7387
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    529
    Sorry guys, couldn't be bothered to go through the entire thread.

    Anybody got suggestion for a superlight binding to mount on my OG C&Ds?

  13. #7388
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    inpdx
    Posts
    12,146
    Apologies up front...! Executive summary on difference between BIlly Goat & Woodsman 116?

    Seems like woodsman has a shorter turn radius but much else is similar...?

    & follow up: differences specific to the 193 sg vs 192 woodsman?

  14. #7389
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    2,212
    Quote Originally Posted by ::: ::: View Post
    Apologies up front...! Executive summary on difference between BIlly Goat & Woodsman 116?

    Seems like woodsman has a shorter turn radius but much else is similar...?

    & follow up: differences specific to the 193 sg vs 192 woodsman?
    Similarities: they are both skis >190cm, bamboo cores, manufactured in PDX
    Differences: many

    Apples and Oranges

    IMHO

  15. #7390
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,454
    Quote Originally Posted by ::: ::: View Post
    Apologies up front...! Executive summary on difference between BIlly Goat & Woodsman 116?

    Seems like woodsman has a shorter turn radius but much else is similar...?

    & follow up: differences specific to the 193 sg vs 192 woodsman?
    BG is RES. Woodsman is bi-radius sidecut. BG has a more traditional mounting point, Woodsman has a more forward mount point. BG is a directional powder ski that can get you to/from the lift, Woodsman is a wide all-mountain ski with a more playful side.

    As for weight of touring skis, I haven't found a 189cm 115 underfoot ski that weighs 1800g that skis well AT ALL. I haven't tried everything on the market, but c'mon... you need to make serious sacrifices in durability and/or ski feel to get down to that kind of weight on a ski that big.

    Sub-2000g is fine for that size of ski. That's 9lbs per pair. Match them with a Salomon MTN Pin or similar and a 1300-1500g boot like an Atomic Hawx XTD 130 and you've got a sweet setup that's not that heavy and skis great.

    Yes there are a lot of 2000g skis. And a lot of 1800g skis. You know what there's not? A BG in either of those weight classes.
    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!

  16. #7391
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    33
    Just got on my new Woodsman 96s yesterday, those things rip! Can’t wait to get out in some softer snow on them. Thanks Iggy for the great work!


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  17. #7392
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    On the mountain
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by ::: ::: View Post
    Apologies up front...! Executive summary on difference between BIlly Goat & Woodsman 116?

    Seems like woodsman has a shorter turn radius but much else is similar...?

    & follow up: differences specific to the 193 sg vs 192 woodsman?
    2 totally different designs, in just about every way imaginable. Woodsman = lovechild of Wrenegade + Jeffrey. Billygoat, Cease & Desist, Supergoat are all soft-snow focused and oranges to your apples, as said earlier. Did you even look at ON3P’s site and compare these at all?

  18. #7393
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    inpdx
    Posts
    12,146
    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    Similarities: they are both skis >190cm, bamboo cores, manufactured in PDX
    Differences: many

    Apples and Oranges

    IMHO
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    BG is RES. Woodsman is bi-radius sidecut. BG has a more traditional mounting point, Woodsman has a more forward mount point. BG is a directional powder ski that can get you to/from the lift, Woodsman is a wide all-mountain ski with a more playful side.
    Quote Originally Posted by MHSP1497 View Post
    2 totally different designs, in just about every way imaginable. Woodsman = lovechild of Wrenegade + Jeffrey. Billygoat, Cease & Desist, Supergoat are all soft-snow focused and oranges to your apples, as said earlier. Did you even look at ON3P’s site and compare these at all?
    yeah & still didn't get it...from the web site
    - the geometry seems to be within millimeters of each other, except turn radius, which implies a softer (or at least geometrically different) flex [i have no idea what bi-radius vs RES means to my skiing]
    - camber profile is indistinguishable
    - tip/tail shape is slightly different
    - mount point is not shown
    - both are directional soft snow skis

    my takeaway was the woodsman was a more mobile forgiving ski comparatively

    thanks for the replies

  19. #7394
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    On the mountain
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by ::: ::: View Post
    yeah & still didn't get it...from the web site
    - the geometry seems to be within millimeters of each other, except turn radius, which implies a softer (or at least geometrically different) flex [i have no idea what bi-radius vs RES means to my skiing]
    - camber profile is indistinguishable (on the web site)
    - tip/tail shape is slightly different
    - mount point is not shown
    - both are directional soft snow skis

    my takeaway was the woodsman was a more mobile forgiving ski comparatively

    thanks for the replies
    RES = Reverse Elliptical Sidecut, basically a reverse sidecut design from boot-front forward. Makes the shovel of the ski handle/turn much better in deep, soft snow. It’s effect is much more effective in a wider ski, which is why the Billygoat is 116mm, Cease&Desist is 124mm and Supergoat is 118mm. The back-half of the these skis are more pintailed (Supergoat excepted, it’s got a stouter tail). This gets the tail-half of the ski deeper in the snow as well as allows for a more tradition sidecut to enable hard-snow manageability. These skis are not a first-choice on a hard, no-new-snow-in-weeks day, they’re manageable but not exactly ideal. Anything soft though, 1”+ and these skis are magical. In a way that’s difficult to put into words. They’re very different than any traditional sidecut design ski, so comparing them to skis built that way is a challenge. You’d have to ride them to really understand what we’re all getting at...

  20. #7395
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,454
    Quote Originally Posted by ::: ::: View Post
    yeah & still didn't get it...from the web site
    - the geometry seems to be within millimeters of each other, except turn radius, which implies a softer (or at least geometrically different) flex [i have no idea what bi-radius vs RES means to my skiing]
    - camber profile is indistinguishable (on the web site)
    - tip/tail shape is slightly different
    - mount point is not shown
    - both are directional soft snow skis

    my takeaway was the woodsman was a more mobile forgiving ski comparatively

    thanks for the replies
    RES = reverse elliptical sidecut. Basically the front half of the ski, from boot toe forward, is reverse sidecut, but with an elliptical arc that still creates a wide point in the front of the ski. But the curvature of the ski is reverse sidecut all the way from the wide point back to the boot toe. The rear half of the ski has a traditional, positive sidecut. The effect of this is that in 3D snow a RES ski can pivot and slarve nearly as easily as a true reverse sidecut ski (Praxis Pow, Volant Spatula) or a ski with a very dramatic 5-point shape (Armada ARG, Praxis Protest, etc). However, the wide point in the tip and positive sidecut in the tail combine to create a longer effective edge on hard snow, resulting in a ski that feels more manageable on hardpack than other skis with similar 3D snow chops.

    Bi-radius sidecut is basically normal sidecut. There's one radius in the front half of the ski, a different radius in the back half of the ski, and the turn radius number you see published is the effective radius of the two combined. Both are normal, positive sidecuts. Many skis are built combining one or more radii into their average radius. Basically, this is a traditional ski.

    So as I said, the Billy Goat is a powder-specific ski that can still get you around on hard snow. The Woodsman is a more traditionally shaped ski and should be better on firm snow, a little more easy going, and a little more playful, but won't offer the wonderful non-hooky slarvability of the BG in powder.
    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!

  21. #7396
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,800
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post

    As for weight of touring skis, I haven't found a 189cm 115 underfoot ski that weighs 1800g that skis well AT ALL. I haven't tried everything on the market, but c'mon... you need to make serious sacrifices in durability and/or ski feel to get down to that kind of weight on a ski that big.

    Sub-2000g is fine for that size of ski. That's 9lbs per pair. Match them with a Salomon MTN Pin or similar and a 1300-1500g boot like an Atomic Hawx XTD 130 and you've got a sweet setup that's not that heavy and skis great.

    Yes there are a lot of 2000g skis. And a lot of 1800g skis. You know what there's not? A BG in either of those weight classes.
    I still think it's possible... but yes, 1800g is an aggressive goal for the current BG geometry.

    Look at the V-Werks line. All those skis fuckin rip and do not feel pingy or overly carbonated. The cores are thin and use the 3D CF cap for torsional rigidity. And they're using poplar and beech/ash, which IMO could be lightened still by going to paulownia or something.

    VW Katana 1885g @ 184cm
    VW BMT109 1737g @ 186cm

    Maybe it's too much work or too expensive to develop a similar milled core and cap, or some other special technique... but a 18x RES ski in the 1800g realm is possible IMO, and I don't think it would ski poorly. The RES shape is inherently stable.

    Leave the current line alone, it's so dialed for resort riding.
    PE, Mechanical Engineering
    University of Bridger Bowl Alumnus
    Alpental Creeper

  22. #7397
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    inpdx
    Posts
    12,146
    thanks, guys
    that's helpful

    I have maybe 4hrs total from two days in different seasons on a 189 BG...still need to demo properly
    just trying to understand the skis goals...

  23. #7398
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    panhandle locdog
    Posts
    6,533
    I too would be interested in an 1800g RES billygoat type ski


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  24. #7399
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Mostly the Elks, mostly.
    Posts
    518

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by sf View Post
    Sorry guys, couldn't be bothered to go through the entire thread.

    Anybody got suggestion for a superlight binding to mount on my OG C&Ds?
    for touring? for what boots? lots of folks think on3ps too heavy to tour (read the recent discussions about tour layup unicorn requests).

    I don’t think too heavy .. I have dynafit rotations on supergoats and also on pillowfights, they do great.

    Mounting my C/D with shifts out of necessity, may remount pillows with shifts if i like. a little more control and power on that ‘yüdge ski.

    not sure if either fit your definition of ‘super light’ but that’s all i got.

  25. #7400
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,454
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    I still think it's possible... but yes, 1800g is an aggressive goal for the current BG geometry.

    Look at the V-Werks line. All those skis fuckin rip and do not feel pingy or overly carbonated. The cores are thin and use the 3D CF cap for torsional rigidity. And they're using poplar and beech/ash, which IMO could be lightened still by going to paulownia or something.

    VW Katana 1885g @ 184cm
    VW BMT109 1737g @ 186cm

    Maybe it's too much work or too expensive to develop a similar milled core and cap, or some other special technique... but a 18x RES ski in the 1800g realm is possible IMO, and I don't think it would ski poorly. The RES shape is inherently stable.

    Leave the current line alone, it's so dialed for resort riding.
    The V.Werks Katana is 1880g for the 184cm and 1910g for the 191cm (actually Volkl has those two backwards on their website, which I'm assuming is a typo). A 189 ON3P is probably the same actual length as a 191 Volkl and the Katana is narrower than the Billy Goat shape. So you're asking for another 100g/ski lighter in a wider ski. (Edit: Blister measured the 18/19 V-Werks Katana, in 184cm, at 1960-1975g/ski!)

    I just don't see 1800g from ON3P in a 115ish underfoot, 189cm ski in stiffer flexes. They'd have to go thinner bases, thinner edges, no bamboo, and those three things are distinctly not ON3P. I'm not saying it's impossible to build a ski with a Billy Goat shape in that weight class, I'm just saying they would have to make serious tradeoffs in ski performance, durability, or both in order to do that and I just don't see that aligning with ON3P's philosophy as a company.

    I maintain that sub-2000g would be a good target for 189cm/115 underfoot. Obviously shorter and narrower skis would be lighter. That's light enough and could realistically and affordably be built, would be substantially lighter than any of the previous tour core skis, and would not require massive sacrifices to achieve.

    But this is TGR, where unrealistic expectations are de rigueur.
    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!

Posting Permissions

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