ON3P SKIS Discussion

[mr_pretzel]

I think skinny skis are more fun in shorter lengths, but being 6,3 you would probably enjoy the 189.
Especially since you have felt the feeling of overpowering your skis a lot.

Order online, mount up. ON3P mainly sells online so this is a non-issue

[jackattack]

I think it’d be worth your while to look at the 187 woodsman 96. There’s an ON3P demo fleet that lives in Bozeman. You should try to track it down.

[Hood26]

Line.......I have 116’s. This takes all the ski tech into account by ON3P. The builder has this nailed I think for each model he makes. Trust the mark.....Wrens, woods, BG all on the line. All ski as they were designed and are money. I’d play around with the tune once mounted but FWIW go on the mark.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

☝️

[detuned]

I live in Billings, MT.

I think it’d be worth your while to look at the 187 woodsman 96. There’s an ON3P demo fleet that lives in Bozeman. You should try to track it down.

not sure if these posts are related but fwiw, chalet sports in bozeman has on3p demos

pretty sure they're doing wrens, woods and jeffs. they avoid the asym models due to the bony nature of bb/bs

[mtskibum16]

I had a rather unfortunate parting of ways with my old blizzard peacemakers 186 '15 yesterday. Honestly didn't love em that much, as I was a college kid I just ripped them anyways. They were paired with Bodacious 187s. I got a trip Snowbird planned for this weekend and am eying up some new all mountain skis. I grew up skiing midwest hardpack and have a long racing background. Now I live in Billings, MT.

Negative thoughts on my 104 underfoot peacemaker 186s
-I thought they were a little short at times.
-I thought they were a bit wide for conditions I skied 75% of the time.
-They had a speed limit that I found many times
-They actually carved pretty well on the steeper blues, blacks was chatter city (That's what my gs skis are for)

I need a new pair of all mountains by THURSDAY . I'm 6'3" 180 lbs, I flex my lange 130s with booster straps nicely.
-Talked to a friend about the obvious choice - Bonafides. His lasted a season, He pointed me to the ON3P Wrenegade 96's.
- I found the Wren 96 Ti and for the reasons stated above I'm pretty much sold. I just have one issue.
-I can pick up some 184s on my way through Bozeman on Thursday, but I'm worried they'll feel a bit short. They don't have any 189s unless I can talk the shop into selling their demos (I doubt this). I can buy some 189s and mount them myself, but I'll need to do this tomorrow. I'm a little hesitant to buy skis online.

Tl;Dr Has anyone out there skied the Wren 96 Ti's in the 189 and 184 and cares to comment (6'3" and 180 lbs)?

Based on your racing background and size, 189 seems like the obvious answer. However, here's some numbers based on Blisters measurements of the 186 Peacemaker and 184 Wrenegade 96. Mounts are from true center.

Peacemaker (186): 183.6 long, -3.5 mount => 95.3 cm of ski out front
Wrenegade (184): 184.6 long, -9.3 mount => 101.6 cm of ski out front

Combine the extra length out front with a more traditional tail and the Ti build and I bet the 184 Wren will ski quite a bit bigger than the Peacemaker. That's a super short front end you're used to if they are mounted on the line. If you ski a lot of tight technical steep stuff I'd lean 184 probably. Big open terrain and I'd lean 189. Good luck!

[Muggydude]

Got day two in on my 19' Cease and Desists 189cm, mounted +.5cm in front of the line because I used an existing mount for a bigger boot. I'm 5'9 190lbs right now. Like to ski fast, but have to try and slow myself down nowadays cause of a bad back.

The first day was at a nice early season pow day at Vail - 1+ feet of heavy, sticky snow (PNW type). I honestly did not like them. They felt super slow and clumsy, difficult to pivot and just not fun. They were great for charging through crud and chop I couldn't see (whiteout conditions). I was ready to sell them, but very glad I didn't and they will be staying in the quiver now.

After the first day, I checked the bases out and realized they were super dry, and had a very course spring snow structure. I thought this could have contributed to the slow feeling I had considering how different my experience was from other people. I took them to a shop, had them smooth out the base structure with a finishing stone, then waxed them myself with some good medium race bases and warmer temp wax on top.

Got on them again this weekend, and holy shit! These things rock. I 100% think the dry/slow bases and incorrect base structure + sticky snow was a major cause of my issues the first day. I didn't get any of that this second time.


Repost from the Protest thread since I A-B tested the two skis (192 enduro veneer 3 flex) this weekend:

Overall, I found the Cease and Desists to be super predictable/automatic. Damper layup definitely shines in chop and lets you charge over it or through it - not sensitive to bumpy run outs or groomers like the Protests. Definitely handle variable and hardpack better and in that way perhaps makes them a better resort ski. Tips can't sink and they enjoy some tip pressure which I really like - lets you get after it. They definitely want to go fast and are so fluid and quick when you do. I finally understood the RES magic this weekend, super quick and smooth to pivot and shut down. Really enjoyed quick little surfy turns and they really do just make it so easy to go fast and in control. Low speed, low angle, I think their weight and design make them a little clumsier than the Protests.

Personally, I feel like the Protests are still maybe a superior untouched/cat skiing/lighter density/morning pow ski. I think the Cease and Desists are a better variable/afternoon/chop/day after the storm/PNW snow pow ski. Honestly on an ideal pow day I'd probably want to grab the Protests in the morning then head to the car and swap out for Cease and Desists at lunch. That being said the Cease and Desists are still an amazing pow ski in all conditions, so it's pretty hard to go wrong. Neither are necessarily better than the other, just different and I think the style of the skier will play a big role in which he prefers. For resort skiing, the fact of the matter is everything gets tracked out so fast, that the new C&D design really makes them an ideal ski for the conditions that actually are on the mountain (chopped pow by mid morning, tracked out everything by afternoon), vs the conditions we wish were there (untouched all day). At least for weekend warriors like me.

I haven't gotten on my 17' Cease and Desists that have the old super-rockered design, but I suspect it may bridge the gap between the Protests and current generation C&D. Time will tell.

[kid-kapow]

nice write up Muggy!

Snow is dumping down outside. So as you do I was sitting here debating whether to start on C&Ds, BGs or SGN Toggas (local ski brand's take on a Renegade) tomorrow. After reading this I think C&Ds will win, though I prob should give them a wax. Oh manana manana - I'll give a wax then.

Your 2017s - what graphic do they have? Hard to tell from just the one ski, and since C&D graphics usually are killer your very nice quiver pic got me curiously excited

[detuned]

I finally understood the RES magic this weekend, super quick and smooth to pivot and shut down. Really enjoyed quick little surfy turns and they really do just make it so easy to go fast and in control

this

excellent description of control for a wide waist ski, my bg's are old time 118 res and the quick turn ease is almost unbelievable

[Adrgha]

Excellent write-up about what's become the favourite ski in my quiver. So much fun in anything soft, and it's almost ridiculous how such a big ski can be so easily manoeuvrable in tight terrain. Just a shame there's hardly been conditions to bring them out so far in this horrible excuse of a season we've had up here so far.

[ORick]

After all of the great commentary and discussion in this thread, I’m confident that the Woodsman 108 is the ski for me. That said I have a couple of questions:

What length should I go with? 187 or 192?
(I am 6’1” ~150 lbs and this will be my daily driver at Squaw + Alpine)

Any news on potential updates to the Woodsman 108 for next year? If not I am just going to grab them now and get some days in this season on them.

[sf]

187. Unless you're the absolutely best skier on the mountain

[undertow2]

At 150lbs 187 for sure - I own several ON3P models and ON3P models run longer than other manufacturers...


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[adrenalated]

After all of the great commentary and discussion in this thread, I’m confident that the Woodsman 108 is the ski for me. That said I have a couple of questions:

What length should I go with? 187 or 192?
(I am 6’1” ~150 lbs and this will be my daily driver at Squaw + Alpine)

Any news on potential updates to the Woodsman 108 for next year? If not I am just going to grab them now and get some days in this season on them.

187.

ON3P runs all of their skis on 2 or 3 year cycles (can't remember which) and since the Woodsman was new this year, I would expect no changes other than graphics for next season.

[phatty]

I skied a couple days on the 187 and I'm 6' 1" and 195. While I would buy a 192 for myself, at your weight I would do 187. It wasn't crazy short for me but I did find myself wanting something longer.

[kid-kapow]

... ON3P runs all of their skis on 2 or 3 year cycles (can't remember which)...

2-year cycle I believe - which means changes should be coming to the Jeffrey line for 2021 (changes two years ago was that the 96 was introduced, sidecut changes for the 108s and 19 weight glass instead of 22 for 116)

We got somewhere between 30-70cm of fresh here today. Started out with C&Ds, but should've waxed them - so quickly moved on to SGN Togga carbons (renegade clone) mounted w/Tectons. The Togga and I did not get along at all. The tips struggled to stay up in the deep snow, and I even had a slam due to one of em all of a sudden wanting to be a submarine. Most likely user error and too low speeds to make the design shine. Oh well. Then moved to BGs that worked like a charm for the conditions - super fun.

Later in the day I opened up a new zone that was seriously deep making the BGs struggle to stay afloat - cue C&Ds.

Holy crap.

I have never been on a ski that is so loose and nimble when it gets a bit steeper / faster and deep. I even took a decent spill when my left Shift decided that I no longer needed my left ski after landing a drop into a bombed out landing (tried to jump past it, failed) - but oh well, increased din and preload, and fixed a slipping AFD -> no more issues. One section of one of those runs is probably the best segment I've ever skied. It was 100% awesome.

My BGs will still see a lot more time on the slopes than the C&Ds as I prefer them over C&Ds in anything but super deep snow. That being said - the only reason I will part ways with the C&Ds is to get a custom top version, or being flat out broke. So they def dethroned BMT122s for me as the best deep snow ski in my quiver. Just wow.

sorry for being long winded and too detailed here - I know what skis I went for in what order isn't a breaking story, but I am a bit overly excited just about now

Thanks Iggy!

[soggysandwiches]

Just got a Woodsman 108 for powder/west trip ski, have 2 days on it in. It's the widest ski I've ever skied. I like the float in general but I was kind of hoping for a little more looseness in deep stuff. It feels kinda locked into turns in powder. I don't have much experience with tuning or hands on stuff. Would a gummy stone to the tips and tails help increase the looseness in fresh stuff? Anyone else have a similar experience ?

[mtskibum16]

Well while we're back on Woodsman 108 sizing....I'm still not sure what I would grab. 5'10" 170 fairly aggressive skier but I do like to get sideways a bit and not always 100% fall line (thus Woodsman over Wren). I ski a 184 Billy Goat which I have found to be perfect. Old 184 Bibbys felt small on powder days, but I have a feeling they'd be good length as a daily - ie: I feel like I'd lean towards a 184 Wildcat 108 over the 190 as a daily driver. Looking for something that can charge but still be enjoyable in the tight and steep stuff or when slowed down with the wife. If there is fresh snow I'll be on BGs, so pow float is not really a concern. If it was a 1 ski quiver I think the 187 would be a no-brainer.

If there was a 184 Woodsman I'd pick that over a 189 for sure. I'm torn on the 182 vs 187. The playfulness vs stability slider between these two and where each would fall. A 182 Woodsman is probably the same size (and about the same mount) as a WC108. The 187 is probably close to the 190 WC108. After starting at the 187 I've about got myself talked in to the 182. It feels a bit strange to buy a ski with two sizes bigger available though. Has anyone skied both?

[jackattack]

Just got a Woodsman 108 for powder/west trip ski, have 2 days on it in. It's the widest ski I've ever skied. I like the float in general but I was kind of hoping for a little more looseness in deep stuff. It feels kinda locked into turns in powder. I don't have much experience with tuning or hands on stuff. Would a gummy stone to the tips and tails help increase the looseness in fresh stuff? Anyone else have a similar experience ?

maybe,

also, and probably more effectively, wax,

but really, you're fighting the sidecut compared to a ski like the Billy Goat.

[jackattack]

If there was a 184 Woodsman I'd pick that over a 189 for sure. I'm torn on the 182 vs 187. The playfulness vs stability slider between these two and where each would fall. A 182 Woodsman is probably the same size (and about the same mount) as a WC108. The 187 is probably close to the 190 WC108. After starting at the 187 I've about got myself talked in to the 182. It feels a bit strange to buy a ski with two sizes bigger available though. Has anyone skied both?

Do you feel your BG is too short?

No - 182
Yes - 187

[kid-kapow]

As you say, a 182 wood108 and a 184 wildcat108 is practically identical length wise and mount wise.

The rockers in the tails of the two skis are a bit different, as is the flex in the shovels/tails and the construction/build. Wood108s are a bit stiffer (especially in the front/aft part of the ski - both are strong underfoot) and heavier. I will be surprised if woods108 will not feel like a more substantial ski than wild108s simply due to flex, weight and lessened rocker in the rear. Wood108s are not terribly playful, but are a ton of fun regardless.

If you enjoy the amount of ski you have in front of you on BGs than the bigger size could be the way to go, but it could be at a slight trade off in nimbleness due to a longer rear end. I run 184 BGs and 182 wood108s, and would not have gone up on the latter - extremely happy with both. I used to run 179 BGs ( I am smaller guy at 175cm and 70kg pre-kit), but prefer them in 184.

Either will be fine for your needs imho. If you feel 182s are too short - re bibby feeling too short and being on the next to baby size isn't manly enough (i jest vs welcome to my world) - just go 187 and shred.

edit: hm, jackattack sumarized it pretty well above.

[mtskibum16]

I feel the 184 BG is perfect. It's never felt to short or too long. With the caveat that it's my new snow day ski and has mainly been in good powder conditions. The Woods 187 would still have less ski out front than my 184 BG, but quite a lot more tail and I assume less tail rocker. Because I have nothing else to reference, the 182 Woodsman has the same effective edge as a 189 BG.

Kid, good points. We're similar in size with me just having a bit of weight on you. I would say I'd size up on a BG before I'd size down though. The 182 Woods being as big, heavier, more stout, and less tail rocker than a 184 WC108 is kind of what got me to thinking about the smaller size. I mean playful in reference to a direction ski vs playful as in jibby. "Playful" across the fall line maybe.

When I was considering the Kartel108 in the past, I was planning on the 186 with all the rocker on both ends. I guess the Woods being both longer and less rocker than that is what gave me pause.

I get out a ruler and look at 5cm (2in) realizing that's split front and rear and it probably doesn't matter that much. Maybe I'll take my old 184 Bibby out this weekend in non-pow conditions and pay attention to the size. They always just looked short up front more than skied too short....except for in deep conditions where they were actually just too short up front and too much float in the rear (thus BGs).

[kid-kapow]

If demoing is not an option, the easiest thing is as always just to give ON3P a call and ask.

Or just go 187 and shred.

Btw - mr Ellsworth over at Blister is just about the same size/weight as you, def liked the 187, and the other reviewer (who is more my size) also seemingly got along well with the 187. So if you are a strong skier and unsure, sizing up will probably be fine. For my needs 182 is plenty/perfect.

[mtskibum16]

Yeah I've read their review. In a review for some other ski though I remember one of the guys making a comment to how much bigger the 187 Wood felt in a certain situation...they were on like a 184 non-ON3P and I was thinking "well yeah no kidding, maybe compare the same size skis." I doubt I'd be unhappy on either, but my quiver will likely be pretty set for a while after this purchase so I want to get it right.

[MiddleOfNight]

Just got a Woodsman 108 for powder/west trip ski, have 2 days on it in. It's the widest ski I've ever skied. I like the float in general but I was kind of hoping for a little more looseness in deep stuff. It feels kinda locked into turns in powder. I don't have much experience with tuning or hands on stuff. Would a gummy stone to the tips and tails help increase the looseness in fresh stuff? Anyone else have a similar experience ?

detune and gummi, drive shins.

[soggysandwiches]

detune and gummi, drive shins.

will do. thanks