Page 367 of 374 FirstFirst ... 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 ... LastLast
Results 9,151 to 9,175 of 9340
  1. #9151
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by eSock View Post
    Did anyone else hear in Cody Townsend's most recent Blister Podcast where he mentioned Shifts ripping out of certain ski brands like ON3P because they're soft/flexible skis more often? Anyone here experienced this?
    Yeah I heard that and Iím just about to mount Shifts on my Steeple 102ís. So if anyone has experience with Steepleís and Shifts please chime in.

  2. #9152
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    2,745
    What would make a shift more likely to pull out than any other binding? Sounds anecdotal to me.

  3. #9153
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    809
    Cody pretty clearly said that the bindings hadn't actually ripped out. The skis he was talking about had flexed deeply enough for the front toe screw to slide out of the slot it sits in, and pop the forward part of the binding off the ski. No actual damage.

    Maybe don't take Shifts to the park, and do a ton of butters on them. Otherwise don't worry about it.

  4. #9154
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SEA>DEN>Spokanistan
    Posts
    1,573
    2 years of skiing shifts on goats and C&Ds ó no issues.

    I donít butter tho.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  5. #9155
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiLyft View Post
    2 years of skiing shifts on goats and C&Ds ó no issues.

    I donít butter, yet .


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    FIFY
    Common sense. So rare today in America it's almost like having a superpower.

  6. #9156
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by eSock View Post
    Did anyone else hear in Cody Townsend's most recent Blister Podcast where he mentioned Shifts ripping out of certain ski brands like ON3P because they're soft/flexible skis more often? Anyone here experienced this?
    If anyone knows who this is, I would be certainly curious to find out. We've never heard of it (podcast was first time), and we have lots of athletes & factory guys skiing rounder (although I would argue not that soft) flexing skis (Magnus 112 protos, Jeffrey 108, Jeffrey 116) - almost everyone in a stock flex - with Shifts and have never heard of what he described. That includes guys who really flex their skis (Magnus, Mango, LSM). So if anyone knows, let me know! I will ask our guys too and update if maybe I just never heard about it.
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  7. #9157
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    860
    I havent heard the podcast, but I assume he’s talking about shifts breaking at the middle toe screw, not the skis(norseman had signs of this problem on his Lhassa which are not soft).

    He should probably look at his wet cardboard qst 118s then...smh..

  8. #9158
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    Also, for those who have wondering (like I have been) how the titanal is integrated into the ti skis, ON3P kindly provided this pic on Insta today
    Not all that complex. We route a channel of equal thickness in the core and the titanal nests inside so it sits flush in the ski.

    Quote Originally Posted by ::: ::: View Post
    Can anyone comment on the current order to delivery time on a custom?
    Bit of stratification to date depending on what it is.
    Most skis are running 20-25 days.
    If it is a:
    Wood Veneer - add 5-8 days
    BG - Been mold stuck with tour cores out of stock. With them now back in, 184cm will get cleared and 189cm should start right after. Will reset times on orders going forward. 179cm...might not happen at this point as we're so behind with Covid. We'll see.
    Tour - see above. Any open tours that aren't already in production will be in production next week. With material here, times will reset to normal.
    Women's - Like the BG, we're just getting to the point in the production cycle where we're getting them into production at scale, so womens customs all going into production now. That said, it might be a one and done thing if we continue to see difficulties stocking our high volume models, like we are right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    Yeah but we need real weights
    Those are still accurate as averages.

    We *just* Friday got our large tour core material shipment so tour production will be ramping up. As those volumes increase we'll get a much better sample size, so if weights migrate with volume we'll update. Now we just have to figure out where it goes...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P.jpg 
Views:	107 
Size:	1.67 MB 
ID:	344905

    Quote Originally Posted by Name Redacted View Post
    Damn, shoulda kept up with this thread this summer. BG tour all sold out. Any chance of future runs this season? Guess I don't "NEED" them but I sure would want them.
    Quote Originally Posted by fleaches View Post
    I don't think they are really sold out for the season, they only ever had like one on the website. I think they are just a little behind on getting this year's skis built, understandably.
    Most of our first round of tour skis sold out on custom or people emailing asking to preorder from the first first group. The delivery window on this Paulownia was a bit large, so been in wait-and-see mode to see how quickly it got through the ports & customs. Luckily was pretty quick, so we'll be updating inventory/delivery timeline this week. Any open 50/50/Tour customs are first up, but then will be 184 then 189 BG variants, then WD 108 Tour, then JF 108 Tour.

    As for being behind, just cannot replace time. Things are returning to baseline, but we had our own internal Covid shutdown, a lot of time at 50% capacity, and 3-4 major (now resolved) supplier issues. Even so, I expect cold and flu season is going to cause havoc while people are out waiting for Covid tests (already run into this several times, all negative but better safe than sorry).

    So right now, its likely that certain models never make it to stock production, others will be one and done, and we're just restocking our top 25 or so SKUs and doing customs. Right now we're sold out or close to selling out on way too many of our top 25 SKUs for me to be comfortable, so right now we're just sprinting as quick as we can through them to keep them in stock or available within 1-2 weeks of order.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reformed View Post
    It will be interesting to hear other people’s thoughts on the BG108 Tours once they’ve had a chance to spend some time on them. Ive been on the heavy version (Steeple 108s) for a few seasons now and was reminded how much I like them during the first turns of the year yesterday. My stoke for these skis has been essentially in a vacuum given the relatively low numbers produced and sold and where I live. I hope all the new owners end up as stoked as I have been with these boards!
    I'll also be curious on 50/50 comparisons. We're pretty happy where those are coming in weight wise.
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  9. #9159
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post

    I have last year's 192 with masking tape on them, prepped for mounting. Should I mount back a few mm to "update" to the new norm? Or did the sidecut geo change, too?
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    I have last year's 182 and mounted them 1cm back from the line. I felt like that was right (for me) but can't compare to any other mount point.

    The line did change for this year. I think Iggy said it moved 0.75cm back. I could be off a little.
    Not sure if sidecut geometry was adjusted at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doremite View Post
    Same question. Was thinking of going 1cm back but my telemark mounting projects always leave me over thinking things. I am back about 1cm on my 2018/2019 Protos and dig it. Slightly longer tail than production.
    Quote Originally Posted by Quandary View Post
    Kid-Kapow's quote re the 182 mount question was originated by me regarding the mounting of W116s. I lean towards a more rearward mounted ski. Take the following as you choose. I had the skis mounted this summer by a fellow in Breck who has a tech shop but primarily makes his living as a patroller and has worked with RMU in the design of their skis. We had some long discussions about mount location for the Woodsmen. Based on the design, side cut etc, he very strongly recommended following Iggy's advice and mounting on the line. Which I did, hopefully it works out.
    So when we move a mount, it does come with a wholesale change with an adjusted sidecut, core profile, etc. But the change we're talking about here - especially going back - is small enough that being slightly off those design elements is not an issue. So if you want a bit more tip, go for it. We felt that the balance of the ski could be a bit more directional, hence the move. That said, I am sure most of the people last year skied them at recommended.

    Quote Originally Posted by peglegger View Post
    Still probably too early but anxious to hear feedback on new tour construction. They are coming in really light. Almost too light for my taste. Im considering a Woodsman 108 (182cm) for a one ski touring quiver. But I am almost tempted to go with 50/50 construction as I like just a tiny bit of beef in my tour ski. My question is, considering the most of a skis feel comes from its core construction, and it appears the core is the same on tour build and 50/50 (50/50 just has the thicker bases and edges) does anyone have any thoughts or ideas on how the a tour build might ski compared to a 50/50. It looks like the weight difference could be significant (maybe 100-200g/ski) but given that that weight is solely coming from thicker bases and edges, I wonder if there will be much noticeable difference in feel??? In other words, you'll gain the weight, but will it really transfer to that much better downhill performance if the cores are alike...
    It's probably no surprise that I've long felt you really cannot replace mass. So - yes - in our opinion there is enough difference to justify the 50/50. It's very similar to stock in flex (where Tour is a bit rounder), coming in around +200g/ski from the tour weights, and the additional base thickness does decrease how much vibration you feel.

    As we've been building custom pairs for people at work, most have started wanting the tour flex and end up changing to 50/50 before it goes to press. Been pretty funny.

    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    Do we have weights on

    108 Billy Goat Tour
    116 Billy Goat TOur

    in 189?
    As mentioned above, those weight are still accurate but we'll have another big group coming through over the coming weeks so as we get more data, we'll update.
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  10. #9160
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by peglegger View Post
    Still probably too early but anxious to hear feedback on new tour construction. They are coming in really light. Almost too light for my taste. Im considering a Woodsman 108 (182cm) for a one ski touring quiver. But I am almost tempted to go with 50/50 construction as I like just a tiny bit of beef in my tour ski. My question is, considering the most of a skis feel comes from its core construction, and it appears the core is the same on tour build and 50/50 (50/50 just has the thicker bases and edges) does anyone have any thoughts or ideas on how the a tour build might ski compared to a 50/50. It looks like the weight difference could be significant (maybe 100-200g/ski) but given that that weight is solely coming from thicker bases and edges, I wonder if there will be much noticeable difference in feel??? In other words, you'll gain the weight, but will it really transfer to that much better downhill performance if the cores are alike...
    If you remember the ďbastardĒ Renegade debacle (where J-Lev managed to make a very soft renegade by accident) my recollection is it came largely from a thinner base material. I mention this just because I wouldnít be so quick to ignore ďjustĒ thicker bases in terms of flex.

    Iggy is obviously a vastly more reliable source than that but in case you wanted an anonymous idiot on the internetís $.02 too (moreover an idiot that has never touched the skis in question)...

  11. #9161
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    inpdx
    Posts
    14,063
    Thx, iggy

  12. #9162
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    5,738
    Yeah thanks for chiming in on all these points despite the scene down there.

    Ended up mounting the 192 WD 108 at -8mm from the mark.
    life ain't guaranteed, love your people while you can

  13. #9163
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    If anyone knows who this is, I would be certainly curious to find out. We've never heard of it (podcast was first time), and we have lots of athletes & factory guys skiing rounder (although I would argue not that soft) flexing skis (Magnus 112 protos, Jeffrey 108, Jeffrey 116) - almost everyone in a stock flex - with Shifts and have never heard of what he described. That includes guys who really flex their skis (Magnus, Mango, LSM). So if anyone knows, let me know! I will ask our guys too and update if maybe I just never heard about it.
    For those curious, apparently this was the post Cody was referring to. Ski was a 186cm Wrenegade 112 on 3rd set of holes....so....yeah.
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...3p#post5820975

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2020-10-26 at 5.48.53 PM.jpg 
Views:	214 
Size:	486.1 KB 
ID:	345072
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  14. #9164
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    860
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    For those curious, apparently this was the post Cody was referring to. Ski was a 186cm Wrenegade 112 on 3rd set of holes....so....yeah.
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...3p#post5820975

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2020-10-26 at 5.48.53 PM.jpg 
Views:	214 
Size:	486.1 KB 
ID:	345072
    And overlapping holes at that, LOL.

  15. #9165
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    156
    Hilarious. Glad this was tracked down.

    Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

  16. #9166
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    2,745
    I think that one can be attributed to the mount your own fucking skis thread.

  17. #9167
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    5,738
    The kid gnar_shralp406 skis hard.

    I was slightly concerned by several stories of this same failure but attributed it to rippers above my pay grade flexing their skis deeply... then I saw on my own pair signs of high stress on the toe nubbin after only a handful of days.

    There's too much force put through the nub, IMO. Thought about machining a set of steel nubs (what they should've come with) but sold the Shifts instead.
    life ain't guaranteed, love your people while you can

  18. #9168
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    For those curious, apparently this was the post Cody was referring to. Ski was a 186cm Wrenegade 112 on 3rd set of holes....so....yeah.
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...3p#post5820975

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2020-10-26 at 5.48.53 PM.jpg 
Views:	214 
Size:	486.1 KB 
ID:	345072
    Hey look, I'm famous!
    Just to clear things up, I'm not really sure how the core rotted, if they did at all (yes they were on the 3rd mount). The ski has never had a core shot (mad props to ON3P, I'm hard as shit on skis. I love you guys) so I have no idea how moisture would've gotten in there. It looked to me like a good clean rip and crumpled the topsheet in the process as the screws ripped out.

    I do think that the Shift mount pattern is a weak design, having only 2 screws holding the actual toe piece on and I would advise anyone who has a genuine concern of "being too rad for the Shift" to mount the toe using coils. Maybe this is how the Solly guys do it? I'm not sure.

    And Cody, if you're reading this, you've been a hero of mine ever since your segment in The Way I See It. I hope your grandma is still stoked.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  19. #9169
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    841
    no reason not to franken cast tyrolia tech

    not plug and play but neither is shift

    (couldn't resist trying some skifishbum stream of conscience)
    Common sense. So rare today in America it's almost like having a superpower.

  20. #9170
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    248
    Pic of the 2nd rip out. Holes likely too close again. But they really let the top sheet have it that time haha. Anyway, this is likely a case of me and my friend trying to stretch my beloved Wrens too far. But I still maintain that the Shift 2.0 should have 4 mounting screws for binding retention.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  21. #9171
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    The kid gnar_shralp406 skis hard.
    Awww thanks Norse

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  22. #9172
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    903
    Did that second ski snap in addition to the bindings being ripped out?

    I have never fondled wren112s, but I would be surprised if "really soft" would be an accurate description of how they flex underfoot

  23. #9173
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,171

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    184cm BG108T came in. Bathroom scale shows 1635g or so per ski which is much lighter than I was expecting. Maybe plus or minus 20g due to accuracy. Stoked

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_7400.JPG 
Views:	173 
Size:	159.8 KB 
ID:	345149

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_7399.JPG 
Views:	170 
Size:	284.1 KB 
ID:	345150

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_7401.JPG 
Views:	162 
Size:	314.6 KB 
ID:	345151

  24. #9174
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    809
    Woah. Way lighter than I would have guessed too.

  25. #9175
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,079
    Those numbers of low by about 150 grams/ski. 184cm BG 108 Tour coming in around 1780/ski.
    Seriously, this canít turn into yet another ON3P thread....

Posting Permissions

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