Page 312 of 351 FirstFirst ... 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 ... LastLast
Results 7,776 to 7,800 of 8752
  1. #7776
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by TBS View Post
    What kind of mounting hole issues will I have if I want to mount regular alpine pivots on the line @ 325? Searched Cast's site but ran out of patience
    None. Same holes

  2. #7777
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiLyft View Post
    Iíve said this for the last 2 years! Little lady is 5í2Ē ó make a 16X and we will buy!


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I may have chimed in with you for lady goat in the past....but your wife is 5'2" and....built how if that's allowed? Mine is 5'0" and 115ish, strong physically, intermediate not super aggressive skier. She's been on 154 Volkl Kikus and I'd like to get her on something newer. A PNW daily. I think she could handle a 161 Jessie 96/108 but worried it could be a bit much. I see Moment's size chart for the Bella/etc shows the 152 length for her size. Any input is appreciated.

  3. #7778
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    1,427

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by mtskibum16 View Post
    I may have chimed in with you for lady goat in the past....but your wife is 5'2" and....built how if that's allowed? Mine is 5'0" and 115ish, strong physically, intermediate not super aggressive skier. She's been on 154 Volkl Kikus and I'd like to get her on something newer. A PNW daily. I think she could handle a 161 Jessie 96/108 but worried it could be a bit much. I see Moment's size chart for the Bella/etc shows the 152 length for her size. Any input is appreciated.
    Sheís a bit heavier ó 145#

    The Kiku is a full rocker?

    Like other ON3Ps they ski short and she was on a 162 K2 Remedy 102, bumped to the 165 J108 and she loves it. The guys at my shop talked us into going longer and she is glad we did. A bit more stable than the 161 would have been.

    Has she skied many twin tip skis? It was a simple plug and play with my lady however Iíve heard other women struggling when they came from a more traditional ski.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  4. #7779
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by 3PinGrin View Post
    serving double duty as an axe
    oof, yeah....things can get a lil crazy on the back nine

  5. #7780
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiLyft View Post
    She’s a bit heavier — 145#

    The Kiku is a full rocker?

    Like other ON3Ps they ski short and she was on a 162 K2 Remedy 102, bumped to the 165 J108 and she loves it. The guys at my shop talked us into going longer and she is glad we did. A bit more stable than the 161 would have been.

    Has she skied many twin tip skis? It was a simple plug and play with my lady however I’ve heard other women struggling when they came from a more traditional ski.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    The Kiku is full rocker, but really low splay and subtle tips/tails. She is certainly more of a pivot/slarvy type skier and not a strong carver, though that's something I'd like to work on with her. But mainly looking for something with more aggressive rocker and better float to help in powder. The Kiku has tiny little twins but nothing like the Jessie or Bella. Moment has the Bella 108 in 152 which is a bit shorter and lighter plus much more progressively mounted. The amount of ski out front on a 161/2 Jessie/Bella would be pretty similar to the very traditionally mounted 154 Kiku.

    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    First, most people should size a Woodsman the same as a Wren.
    I guess that's the issue I'm having. They changed the sizing so it's hard to match the Wren. If I were squarely a 184 Wren guy, would I go 182 or 187 Woodsman? It's not immediately obvious where each new Woodsman length falls between the other skis with different lengths. I know it's really splitting hairs, but more consistent lengths across the lines would have been easier to an idiot like me.

    Maybe they can answer, because you have to either upsize or downsize from the Wren line.
    Last edited by mtskibum16; 01-18-2020 at 05:47 PM.

  6. #7781
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    729
    You upsize compared to the wren. The effective edge is shorter on the woodsman.

  7. #7782
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    I mean, I guess, but if the idea is an easier going more turny Wren do you want the same effective edge? "I want an easier going 184 Wren 108" "Ok, here's a longer ski for that." With your logic I would have expected the sizes of the Woodsman to fall between the Jeffery and Wren when sizing up. But it actually falls between them when sizing down.

    I keep hearing the Woodsman is a bit closer to the Wren, but now that I'm looking at their site closer, the effective edge matches exactly to the Jeffery line. 181 Jeff has the same effective edge as the 182 Woodsman (etc). To make it more confusing, a Woodsman is supposed to be a Jeff with less tail rocker, yet it's a cm longer and has a shorter effective edge?

  8. #7783
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    729
    The EE is still shorter in the 187. Also there is more to making the ski easier to ski than the effective edge. The shape and flex pattern + the forward mount point will make it more forgiving and easier than the wren.

    I would also look at 3cm on a ruler.

    Also just chat with iggy on the on3p site so he can help you(and tell you what I just said).

  9. #7784
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,046
    I think we should dispense from the Woodsman is a Jeffrey mixed with a Wren. I've seen it a lot on here but that just really isn't the design basis. It's is own platform that just happens to falls between the two on a performance scale and shares characteristics, but I think trying to imagine that it a baby of the two is a detriment to understanding the skis. It's more Wren than Jeffrey for sure, and will likely make a bit more sense in the line when 2021 comes around with the Wrens TI only.

    EE is also something a lot of people struggle with because you can have two skis with the same dims, same ee, same listed radius, and are wildly different. ie.:
    181cm - 135/105/125, 150cm of ee centered at -10, 25m radius (22/28m bi radius split), with a partial twin
    181cm - 135/105/125, 150cm of ee centered at -3, 25m radius (24.5/25.5m hybrid radius), with a full twin.

    On paper those both have same length, same dims, same EE, same radius, but are wildly different skis (even if the flexes were as close as you can get with that sort of binding platform distribution). This is why ski specs are, frankly, just really surface level in their ability to transfer data. The distribution of EE relative to the ski's length is more important in understanding the ski than the length itself.

    This is a similar quirk to why I find 5-dimensional ski specs absolutely ridiculous. Every ski is 5 dimensional, or 7, or 11, or 99. It doesn't tell you anything meaningful. How do I know what point 1 and point 2 mean, relative to where they fall on the skis? it's literally just a number between 0 and the end of the EE on one end of the skis.

    So, I get why it can be hard to understand ski specs (we're working on a system to help people understand, but just hasn't launched yet).

    Re: Sizing. We don't really view skis as complementary (like a 182cm Woodsman filling the void between a 179cm and 184cm Wren). They are self-standing sizing that fit customer profiles within that balance platform. The number one thing we tell people to focus on is balance now - where am I located on the skis - and what is the rocker & sidecut distribution relative to my weight & balance point. That is sort of the ball game here - as if that doesn't match, everything else is moot.

    Now, as a general rule, if you wanted to maintain a similar level of stability on a Wrenegade 108 in a Woodsman 108, you would size up, but it isn't apples to apples. Someone who liked a Wren 108 in 184cm, but wanted only a bit more playfulness and maneuverability would likely want to go 182cm.

    Use skis you know as a guide, but I wouldn't use them as a rule, if that makes sense.
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  10. #7785
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Western MT
    Posts
    1,495
    Quote Originally Posted by detuned View Post
    oof, yeah....things can get a lil crazy on the back nine
    good times!

  11. #7786
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,693
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    I think we should dispense from the Woodsman is a Jeffrey mixed with a Wren. I've seen it a lot on here but that just really isn't the design basis. It's is own platform that just happens to falls between the two on a performance scale and shares characteristics, but I think trying to imagine that it a baby of the two is a detriment to understanding the skis. It's more Wren than Jeffrey for sure, and will likely make a bit more sense in the line when 2021 comes around with the Wrens TI only.

    EE is also something a lot of people struggle with because you can have two skis with the same dims, same ee, same listed radius, and are wildly different. ie.:
    181cm - 135/105/125, 150cm of ee centered at -10, 25m radius (22/28m bi radius split), with a partial twin
    181cm - 135/105/125, 150cm of ee centered at -3, 25m radius (24.5/25.5m hybrid radius), with a full twin.

    On paper those both have same length, same dims, same EE, same radius, but are wildly different skis (even if the flexes were as close as you can get with that sort of binding platform distribution). This is why ski specs are, frankly, just really surface level in their ability to transfer data. The distribution of EE relative to the ski's length is more important in understanding the ski than the length itself.

    This is a similar quirk to why I find 5-dimensional ski specs absolutely ridiculous. Every ski is 5 dimensional, or 7, or 11, or 99. It doesn't tell you anything meaningful. How do I know what point 1 and point 2 mean, relative to where they fall on the skis? it's literally just a number between 0 and the end of the EE on one end of the skis.

    So, I get why it can be hard to understand ski specs (we're working on a system to help people understand, but just hasn't launched yet).

    Re: Sizing. We don't really view skis as complementary (like a 182cm Woodsman filling the void between a 179cm and 184cm Wren). They are self-standing sizing that fit customer profiles within that balance platform. The number one thing we tell people to focus on is balance now - where am I located on the skis - and what is the rocker & sidecut distribution relative to my weight & balance point. That is sort of the ball game here - as if that doesn't match, everything else is moot.

    Now, as a general rule, if you wanted to maintain a similar level of stability on a Wrenegade 108 in a Woodsman 108, you would size up, but it isn't apples to apples. Someone who liked a Wren 108 in 184cm, but wanted only a bit more playfulness and maneuverability would likely want to go 182cm.

    Use skis you know as a guide, but I wouldn't use them as a rule, if that makes sense.
    So appreciate the educational content in this and similar posts from Scott as and others from the various ski building and design teams that hang out here.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  12. #7787
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Evergreen Co
    Posts
    348
    This is really helpful and clarifying.

    Iíve skied a lot of setups in the past couple of years and I keep getting surprised by what I end up loving.

    Wren 114ís are likely my favorite ski at the moment. On paper I didnít think I would like them because they would be way to much effort to pivot with long effective edge. Turns out if you stand up straight theyíre super easy to pivot with the rocker profile.

    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    I think we should dispense from the Woodsman is a Jeffrey mixed with a Wren. I've seen it a lot on here but that just really isn't the design basis. It's is own platform that just happens to falls between the two on a performance scale and shares characteristics, but I think trying to imagine that it a baby of the two is a detriment to understanding the skis. It's more Wren than Jeffrey for sure, and will likely make a bit more sense in the line when 2021 comes around with the Wrens TI only.

    EE is also something a lot of people struggle with because you can have two skis with the same dims, same ee, same listed radius, and are wildly different. ie.:
    181cm - 135/105/125, 150cm of ee centered at -10, 25m radius (22/28m bi radius split), with a partial twin
    181cm - 135/105/125, 150cm of ee centered at -3, 25m radius (24.5/25.5m hybrid radius), with a full twin.

    On paper those both have same length, same dims, same EE, same radius, but are wildly different skis (even if the flexes were as close as you can get with that sort of binding platform distribution). This is why ski specs are, frankly, just really surface level in their ability to transfer data. The distribution of EE relative to the ski's length is more important in understanding the ski than the length itself.

    This is a similar quirk to why I find 5-dimensional ski specs absolutely ridiculous. Every ski is 5 dimensional, or 7, or 11, or 99. It doesn't tell you anything meaningful. How do I know what point 1 and point 2 mean, relative to where they fall on the skis? it's literally just a number between 0 and the end of the EE on one end of the skis.

    So, I get why it can be hard to understand ski specs (we're working on a system to help people understand, but just hasn't launched yet).

    Re: Sizing. We don't really view skis as complementary (like a 182cm Woodsman filling the void between a 179cm and 184cm Wren). They are self-standing sizing that fit customer profiles within that balance platform. The number one thing we tell people to focus on is balance now - where am I located on the skis - and what is the rocker & sidecut distribution relative to my weight & balance point. That is sort of the ball game here - as if that doesn't match, everything else is moot.

    Now, as a general rule, if you wanted to maintain a similar level of stability on a Wrenegade 108 in a Woodsman 108, you would size up, but it isn't apples to apples. Someone who liked a Wren 108 in 184cm, but wanted only a bit more playfulness and maneuverability would likely want to go 182cm.

    Use skis you know as a guide, but I wouldn't use them as a rule, if that makes sense.

  13. #7788
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Driving2VT
    Posts
    3,437

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Tailwind View Post
    This is really helpful and clarifying.
    Is it? I have always assumed dimensions/radius/flex/rocker profile told you much of what you need to know but now reading between the lines that mount point and taper also huge factors. I sort of get it but I canít explain coherently why the Woodsman behaves like a slightly more gentle Wren, even with this added context. But I really donít need to I guess. I love them both and donít need to understand every technical nuance of why they are so rad. I will continue to follow this thread and slowly build that understanding over time perhaps.
    Uno mas

  14. #7789
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,800
    EE is more a consideration of hard snow. The softer/deeper the snow the more the length of the actual ski will be engaged with the sliding surface(rocker splay and taper come more into play here)
    Take my 195 Powdr boards as an extreme example. Whereas they do not ski long and are pivoty as fuck(rocker and splay), when you get to the run outs/groomers back to the lift you are skiing the area of the ski right under your feet and they feel like blades. You have to ski them different on harder snow surfaces, plain and simple

  15. #7790
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sun Valley, ID
    Posts
    1,825
    TI Wrens only for 2021 interesting. Any changes from the 2020 version slated? Been eyeing a pair.

  16. #7791
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Driving2VT
    Posts
    3,437
    Had the same reaction re: Ti only but I do think that move will better differentiate the Wren v. Woodsman for the vast majority of consumers.

    I have no interest in the Wren w metal so that would make my choice easy. Whereas now I donít have a major preference between the two. Very little time on Woodsman thus far though so my opinion may evolve.
    Uno mas

  17. #7792
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Evergreen Co
    Posts
    348
    I think it helps me see why I have such a hard time choosing a ski I will like based on the specs. More of a Ďthatís why Iíve struggled with this commentí.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doremite View Post
    Is it? I have always assumed dimensions/radius/flex/rocker profile told you much of what you need to know but now reading between the lines that mount point and taper also huge factors. I sort of get it but I canít explain coherently why the Woodsman behaves like a slightly more gentle Wren, even with this added context. But I really donít need to I guess. I love them both and donít need to understand every technical nuance of why they are so rad. I will continue to follow this thread and slowly build that understanding over time perhaps.

  18. #7793
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    3,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    Yeah...heís telling the truth. I think the current C&D is stupid easy to ski. Very similar to the feeling of my 186 2014 BG.
    This is an inspiring comment. I regretted selling my 184cm 15/16 BGs.

    After scoring some 186cm, '14s (the barn find graphics above), I found myself preferring the slightly softer feel. Maybe slightly less performance on hardback than the 15/16s, but that's not why I own them.

    I'm leaning more and more to supplementing these with a pair of C&Ds. I've been on the fence for over a year (in part 'coz this year was about funding an airbag pack).

    Oh yeah ... Scott's contribution is awesome for us "know it all" gear geeks ;-) Thanks, Scott!

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

  19. #7794
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    59
    I feel like I've learned what a good ski feels like after getting the woodsman 108s.

    I finally got to take my 184 meier heritage tour powder skis out this season to Mt baker, while they were fun, they don't really suit my style. They were kind of a random ski swap pick up and they're lighter and shorter than what I should be on at 6'4/200lbs

    So now I'm on the hunt for a new powder ski, and obviously the Billy goats are on my radar. Seems like they're geared for the cascade concrete I'd be seeing most of the time. Any one had time on the Billy goat and wm108 to compare them? Are they similar style but different dimensions enough that they'd make a good 2 ski resort quiver or should I be looking at something fatter like the c&d for my 2nd resort ski with the wm108?

  20. #7795
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    Now, as a general rule, if you wanted to maintain a similar level of stability on a Wrenegade 108 in a Woodsman 108, you would size up, but it isn't apples to apples. Someone who liked a Wren 108 in 184cm, but wanted only a bit more playfulness and maneuverability would likely want to go 182cm.

    Use skis you know as a guide, but I wouldn't use them as a rule, if that makes sense.
    Thanks for the information dump! That's exactly why I was hesitant to assume size up or size down based on a single design detail (like EE). It's dumb and just a mental block, but 182 seems too short and 187 seems on the longer side for what I'm after. 184 in ON3P real size measurement just seems perfect. And yes, I realize 2cm is tiny and not even worth mentioning. Just leaves me in the "should I go up or down" uncertainty zone where-as 179-184-189 I know right where I want to be.

    I LOVE my 184 Billy Goats as an all day new snow ski. In fact they seem to get better as the day goes on, things get tracked up, and speeds increase. I have some 183 QLabs which seem on the short side - I like them fine but they just don't click like the BGs do. 184 Bibby Pro that seems short on powder days, but probably close to right as an all mountain ski. I guess that would be about the same as a 182 Woodsman. 185 Cochise was a bit more directional of a mount than I want but good length. So again, puts me to the true 184 being just perfect. The QLab measures 180.6 with a -7.5 mount. Has a deeper rocker line up front than the BG/Bibby, but much less splay obviously and a square tail with not much rocker. They are actually a pretty great ski just a bit more locked in than I want off-piste and the tail hooks in looser snow. This is what the Woodsman would be replacing. I'd like to cross shop the Woodsman 108, Wildcat 108, and Commander 108. I haven't skied any of Moment's newer lighter skis though.

    From locked in/traditional mount to loose and progressive I feel like it's QLab > Wren > Commander > Woodsman > Wildcat > Jeffery. QLab and Wren could swap as Wren is a more traditional mount, but QLab has less rocker. Those first 3 are all probably close though. Just need to figure out where my preference is on that spectrum. I haven't had a daily driver in the Wildcat class but I can imagine liking it.

    Woodsman mount is like -6?

  21. #7796
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by eSock View Post
    I feel like I've learned what a good ski feels like after getting the woodsman 108s.

    I finally got to take my 184 meier heritage tour powder skis out this season to Mt baker, while they were fun, they don't really suit my style. They were kind of a random ski swap pick up and they're lighter and shorter than what I should be on at 6'4/200lbs

    So now I'm on the hunt for a new powder ski, and obviously the Billy goats are on my radar. Seems like they're geared for the cascade concrete I'd be seeing most of the time. Any one had time on the Billy goat and wm108 to compare them? Are they similar style but different dimensions enough that they'd make a good 2 ski resort quiver or should I be looking at something fatter like the c&d for my 2nd resort ski with the wm108?
    I REALLY REALY like my Billy Goats. I'm planning on a 108 and BG 2 ski quiver. That said, if I had started with the 108 I loved and was now looking for powder ski, the C&D would be super tempting as I ski White Pass quite a bit on powder days and they have a lot of lower angle stuff where the extra float may be nice. But the BG is so good once it starts getting tracked up that it would be hard to give it up now that I know how it skis. I'll just deal with the occasional lower speed low angle pushing for all the high end upside.

  22. #7797
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    59
    Yeah, now that I've learned there are skis where I can mostly point down and carve with the woodsman 108 rather than carefully weave my way down to avoid any roughness... I want more haha. Especially with resort pow.

    I learned to snowboard a decade ago at white pass! I always tell myself I'll stop through on my way to eastern WA and pay them a visit but it's yet to happen.

  23. #7798
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Chicken Coop, Seattle
    Posts
    2,693
    Quote Originally Posted by mtskibum16 View Post
    I REALLY REALY like my Billy Goats. I'm planning on a 108 and BG 2 ski quiver. That said, if I had started with the 108 I loved and was now looking for powder ski, the C&D would be super tempting as I ski White Pass quite a bit on powder days and they have a lot of lower angle stuff where the extra float may be nice. But the BG is so good once it starts getting tracked up that it would be hard to give it up now that I know how it skis. I'll just deal with the occasional lower speed low angle pushing for all the high end upside.
    While we are encouraging gratuitous purchases...

    Let me assure you.

    The cease and desist is still excellent once itís tracked out.
    wait!!!! waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait...Wait!
    Zoolander wasn't a documentary?

  24. #7799
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Taos Ski Valley or my truck
    Posts
    575
    Ti Wren is the truth.

  25. #7800
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by SupreChicken View Post
    While we are encouraging gratuitous purchases...

    Let me assure you.

    The cease and desist is still excellent once it’s tracked out.
    Well those reports last year (my first season on goats) are what had me wondering if a 108 and C&D might be the better 2 ski quiver for me. But a few comments I saw while catching up on this thread had me questioning that. But thanks for making me want them again...

Posting Permissions

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