ON3P SKIS Discussion

[auvgeek]

I dunno, what differences there are between 182 M-Free 108s and 182 WD110s on hard snow is more down to camber profile (height and front/rear bias (mfrees have way more camber ahead of the binding than behind, making the tails release more easily on hard snow, whereas wd110s camber is much more symmetrical) than torsional rigidity imho. I have both, and have skied the 192 M-Free 108 a fair bit too. I would assume the longest wd110 to be a fair bit stiffer than my 182s, like the 192 M-Free108s are also a fair bit more potent than the 182s.

Don't get me wrong - I think the 192 M-Free 108 is one of the best skis I've been on, but the woodsman110's flatter mid section / lower camber height and significant splay should make them more schmearable at slower speeds while still having good enough grip on hard snow, yet also have good stability in variable (weight and construction). M-Free108 192s do offer a different kind of ride feel that is also very loose, with slightly less lift in the shovels than wd110s and good suspension (camber and smooth construction) - though the camber rewards a bit of speed an muscle.

Both are fine skis imho.

You know more than me then, and people should take this advice over mine.

[auvgeek]

I also want to get a 118 tour to compliment my resort Jeff 118 but was unsure if I wanted the stiff layup since it’s a soft snow ski.

I am considering letting my (new) wood eagle 186 Jeffrey 118 Tours go. Never drilled, never skied. My understanding is they're slightly stiffer than stock, due to the wood top, but Scott soften the core a bit to keep it close to stock. Wood Eagle top, Point Break base, green sidewalls, tour layup, tail skinclip notch.

I'm pretty on the fence, and it kinda breaks my heart to sell them. After skiing the 191 Caylors, I'm concerned the 186 will be too short for how I like to ski. But I didn't really want to drag the 191 uphill. I've been talking to Scott about it a bit, and I think I'd like to go a different but similar direction under his advice. So I'm pretty on the fence, but I figured I'd post a feeler in case someone is seriously interested in this ski. It's tough because TGR isn't the place to get top dollar for gear, but the Jeffrey 118 tour isn't available except for custom and I'd like to get as much as possible to put towards a different custom pair.

[awh311]

Trying to decide on a replacement for my old Armada TSTs as a daily driver. They’ve just got one too many broken edges to keep going at this point. I’ve been pretty happy with them over the years albeit they’ve always been too short for my height. I’m looking for a similar ski for soft snow playfulness and the rare hard pack day that I have to deal with. Maybe something with a looser tail. Mostly looking for something to goof around on the whole mountain popping off side hits and bumps and whatnot when the conditions don’t quite call for the powder skis. Should I be thinking Jeffery or woodsman or something entirely different?

[kid-kapow]

I am considering letting my (new) wood eagle 186 Jeffrey 118 Tours go.

holy smokes, you are not messing around with your customs are you - those look sensational. What do they weigh in at?

(must not by jeffs - must not buy jeffs!!)

Mostly looking for something to goof around on the whole mountain popping off side hits and bumps and whatnot when the conditions don’t quite call for the powder skis.

This screams Jeff, while TST sounds more woodsman. If you want the ability to drive the ski through the shovels go woods, or if you ski more centered either works super well. Woods should be more smash, jeff more pop off and over

[carlh]

I just let my 102s go since they were more soft snow focused than I want at that width but I also have goats. For a wider ski in the quiver or a high snow area single ski I would go 110. I could see the 102 being a good one ski quiver for someplace that doesn’t get tons of snow or tons of ice. The 192 is long but east to ski, I’m a bit taller and lighter than you and wouldn’t size down.

Hey woodsman people. Is the Woodsman 108 closer to the new Woodsman 102 or 110 in feel?

Was able to demo some Woodsman 108s in 182 cm, but I am 6’2” and 230lbs. They were fun, but I def needed some more edge/stability of a 192 cm. Debating going 102 in 192 cm for better hard pack or 110 in 187 for more agility in trees with about same float… the 108’s had good enough edge hold on the hard when I tried them.

Coming from Völkl Nunataqs (touring Gotamas) everything has better edge hold. Just tired of getting bounced around. Thanks for the help!

[BeHuWe]

I am considering letting my (new) wood eagle 186 Jeffrey 118 Tours go. Never drilled, never skied. My understanding is they're slightly stiffer than stock, due to the wood top, but Scott soften the core a bit to keep it close to stock. Wood Eagle top, Point Break base, green sidewalls, tour layup, tail skinclip notch.

I'm pretty on the fence, and it kinda breaks my heart to sell them. After skiing the 191 Caylors, I'm concerned the 186 will be too short for how I like to ski. But I didn't really want to drag the 191 uphill. I've been talking to Scott about it a bit, and I think I'd like to go a different but similar direction under his advice. So I'm pretty on the fence, but I figured I'd post a feeler in case someone is seriously interested in this ski. It's tough because TGR isn't the place to get top dollar for gear, but the Jeffrey 118 tour isn't available except for custom and I'd like to get as much as possible to put towards a different custom pair.

I’m with kid, what do they weigh in at?

I’m still very on the fence about length. I think the extra weight/length will Be welcomed on the down. I’m 220 naked and noticed a difference between the 186-191 on the inbounds 118.

Other thought is so take a 186 and move the mount back 1-1.5cm to make up for the lost tip length



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[EWG]

And now another $50 pair of ON3Ps in Denver. This one old kartels.

https://denver.craigslist.org/spo/d/...582788982.html

[jhel3]

Don't get me wrong - I think the 192 M-Free 108 is one of the best skis I've been on, but the woodsman110's flatter mid section / lower camber height and significant splay should make them more schmearable at slower speeds while still having good enough grip on hard snow

Both are fine skis imho.

This section sums up a great point for me to lean towards getting the WD110’s. They are pretty good match to my skiing style. The M-Free’s have been on my shortlist with Moment Wildcats/deathwish. But, I mostly ski Mt Hood (they seem built for mt Hood), ON3P quality seems hard to beat, and I am a Portland native so getting something fixed is a drive to the factory? Same time I am teaching my 4 yr old to ski and he always ends up on my top sheets.

definitely a physically strong 230 lbs, ex multi-sport college athlete and still live in the gym. No beer gut… yet. Lol

seriously though thank you for breaking that down so well. I guess for Mt Hood I should probably go WD110 for a DD then maybe next year as a narrower ski for icy days?

[Bandit Man]

I owned the Woods108 in a 187 and the MFree108 in a 192. I know people are talking about the Woods110 and a longer length. For me, the Woodsman was better on groomers and was more damp. The MFree was MUCH looser in the tail and significantly looser/smearable. Especially in heavy PNW conditions. I was really disappointed in the lack of looseness of the tail of the Woods. YMMV.

[Marko888]

Hey woodsman people. Is the Woodsman 108 closer to the new Woodsman 102 or 110 in feel?

Was able to demo some Woodsman 108s in 182 cm, but I am 6’2” and 230lbs. They were fun, but I def needed some more edge/stability of a 192 cm. Debating going 102 in 192 cm for better hard pack or 110 in 187 for more agility in trees with about same float… the 108’s had good enough edge hold on the hard when I tried them.

Coming from Völkl Nunataqs (touring Gotamas) everything has better edge hold. Just tired of getting bounced around. Thanks for the help!

It depends on which year 108 you tried.

I own a ‘21 Woodsman 102 and a ‘22 Woodsman 110…both 182. Previously owned a ‘20 Woodsman 108. IMHO, neither of my current skis feel particularly similar to my old 108… the mount point has moved back and more significantly, the tails are a fair bit more forgiving on the newer 182’s.

I suspect the current Woodsman 110 would feel most similar to a ‘21 Woodsman 108…but a fair bit less similar to the ‘20 Woodsman 108.

[jhel3]

[/QUOTE]

I own a ‘21 Woodsman 102 and a ‘22 Woodsman 110…both 182.

Between the WD110 and WD102 which one do you end up skiing more often? Any reasoning is appreciated.

Not to ignore what Bandit Man said, I should have started with I am looking for more of a crud buster who is still playful. When I read reviews on the M-Free I saw people were still getting knocked around a bit in chop and crud. Was just thinking if the WD110 can dump speed and is slarvable in the trees at moderate speed it would be an added bonus. No ski is perfect.

people who have both the m-free and wd110 which do you reach for first?

[Marko888]

I think I take the 102 out more often because we don’t get big dumps of snow at our local hill (Big White) When the snow is deeper, the 110 is definitely better… I think it floats well enough to take cat skiing…whereas I wouldn’t take the 102 cat skiing.

I don’t ski chop super fast but I think the 110 works better for me there. I also don’t find the 110 hard to slarve… I probably slarve more than carve anyways. Woodsmen are loose skis…not locked in…though they will lock in somewhat if you drive ‘em.

My hard snow ski is a Brahma… if I had to purge something out of my quiver it would probably be the 102.

The 102 versus 110 choice to me, is just about how much deeper snow you get to ski.

[tuowtraws]

First day on the Wren 110 Pros yesterday up at Stevens. I expected these to be rocketships, and they exceeded all expectations.

[Norseman]

^ sweet. Tell us more

[awh311]

This screams Jeff, while TST sounds more woodsman. If you want the ability to drive the ski through the shovels go woods, or if you ski more centered either works super well. Woods should be more smash, jeff more pop off and over

I’m leaning towards the Jeff. I tend to ski upright when I’m working through the more playful sections. Only drive the tips when I’m mobbing through the heavier Mt hood Mano one the way back to the lift. Thinking the Jeff might be a fun change up for those low snow and spring days on hood. Does ON3p still do demos on Mt Hood or outta the Portland shop?

[EWG]

As my search for Woods 102 continues, I'm now wondering if Wren 102s could take their place. How terrible are wren 102s inbounds in bumps and trees? Anyone have thoughts? I still think Woods might be the ticket.

[PeachesNCream]

Sounds like the tweaks were pretty minor going from k108 -> jeff108 -> jeff110. Is this true for the k116/jeff116/jeff118? Found a good deal on some 16/17 kartel 116s, is this more or less pretty similar to the current jefff118? Blister review seems good

This year: https://www.evo.com/skis/on3p-kartel-116-2017

[kid-kapow]

How terrible are wren 102s inbounds in bumps and trees?

I cannot speak to w102s, but neither w96s nor w106s are terrible inbounds - both are quite fun. Not the most energetic carvers perhaps, but loose and fun in soft snow at speed. Wrens with titanal have lots and lots of grip. Woods are more allround, but wrens are fun too. They have a ton of splay and deep rocker lines, so still plenty loose - especially at lower turn angles.

This year: https://www.evo.com/skis/on3p-kartel-116-2017

There are some more refinements to the wider ski imho.

They first changed the glass from 22oz to 19oz the following year if memory serves me right, making them slightly lighter. The glass has since been changed to the glass with integrated carbon fibre saving a bit more weight too I believe.

The 118 shape is a further evolution of K/J116s ski. It has deeper taper lines (especially in the back making for a more balanced ski/tails have slightly less float) and slightly shorter sidecuts with the new model - so a bit more lively, made more so by the slightly lower, if still appropriate weight. Everybody who's been on the current version in this thread has loved them, but the old ones are great skis too.

I would get the new one if you want the most refined wide Jeff to date, or get the cheaper 16/17 if you want slighlty more heft and what is still a great, playful ski.

[jhel3]

I demo’d at Next Adventure. Only ones I could find. Sandy location has more options. I think everything is 182 cm. Call them cause it’s not listed online.

[SchralphMacchio]

I don’t ski chop super fast but I think the 110 works better for me there. I also don’t find the 110 hard to slarve… I probably slarve more than carve anyways. Woodsmen are loose skis…not locked in…though they will lock in somewhat if you drive ‘em.

My hard snow ski is a Brahma… if I had to purge something out of my quiver it would probably be the 102.

Just adding to this, I have the gen 1 WD108 and they can be turned quite easily at low speeds. What I like about them is you are the one turning the skis, you dictate the speed, direction, turn shape, and how locked in vs smeary.

The gen 1 108s have a stiffer tail than current and feel stiff enough to me overall where they want to be skied hard/intentionally to get the most out of them, but not necessarily needing a high entry speed, if that makes sense at all. I got a reply from ON3P about differences between my ski and the current 110, and the 110 has a stiffer forebody, softer tail, more progressive tail rocker, and mount point -1.25 cm from Gen 1. So overall that seems to me like the current ski is both looser to pivot but also more drivable through crud.

WD108s are my PNW daily drivers, basically intended for anything that is better than pure garbage and also not completely soft or completely deep all around the mountain, and I think they do pretty well in that regard. At some point I think I will replace mine with custom WD110s in soft flex to make the ski a little less demanding and a little more versatile in powder (though that would really increase overlap with my Rustler 11s that I love!).

But on the next ski down in size, which is intended as a junk snow ski when it’s just mostly crap everywhere on the mountain, or early AM in the spring and everything is still locked up, I’m currently on a really old Gen 1 Enforcer 98 and I think I’m going to replace it with a current model Kendo 88. So I would have a jump from 88 to 108/110, and honestly I feel I would have no qualms about that because the WD108s are so dang versatile. I would have to confirm this once I get my hands on some Kendos, but you can see where I’m goin with this, I’m also echoing the question of “why would I want a WD102 when the 108 is so good on mixed bag conditions?”

Then I go up to a Rustler 11 which isnt much bigger but it’s much more of a pure soft snow ski that can handle 2D well but not crud, and it’s much more easy going and playful than the WD108. I’m going to put Duke PTs on this one to make it my travel ski too, as I don’t think the WD110 could get there, but again if I do a WD110 with custom soft layup it might change my mind on that …

And of course bigger skis from there. Anyways I hope adding feedback about the WD108 helps those thinking about the 102 vs 110 debate.

[lrn2swim]

As my search for Woods 102 continues, I'm now wondering if Wren 102s could take their place. How terrible are wren 102s inbounds in bumps and trees?

They're not terrible at all. 22.5m turn radius and ample rocker keeps them pretty maneuverable. Wouldn't exactly call them playfull though

Wrens with titanal have lots and lots of grip. Woods are more allround, but wrens are fun too. They have a ton of splay and deep rocker lines, so still plenty loose - especially at lower turn angles.

100%

[Marko888]

Great input Schralph, which I mostly agree with.

I also found my original Woodsman 108 to want to be skied fairly hard to get the best out of them. As I’m older, I bought the 1 year newer 102 in hope of it being an easier ski, which it is. The 110 has some of the charginess of the 108, but I think overall it’s still an easier ski than the OG 108…at least in my 182 length. When first got on them, I too was thinking a custom soft flex 110 might be better…but now a few great days in, I’m no longer considering a softer version. I have found them to be GREAT in powder too. I’m 5’-10” 190#.

[SchralphMacchio]

Awesome that’s great feedback, echoes what kid kapow mentioned to me upthread. Maybe I’ll look for a used 177 stock WD110 and use that as a less expensive test piece to decide if I can stay there or go custom!

I’m also gonna have my boots softened up (right now 130+) which will give me more suspension travel. They are currently too stiff for me which creates issues getting pushed into the backseat on hits and chatter.

[MoeSnow]

Picked up some 110 Jeffs, gonna make them my daily drivers. The 118s are fun, even if there is only half an inch of new snow, but I think the 110s are going to be a bit more versatile. Placed the skis next to each other after picking the 110s up and I was surprised by how much larger the 118s are, particularly in the tips and tails.

I got some Dad-esque QST 92s for groomer days. Pretty stoked to be on this setup for the next few years.

I am thinking that If I never end up touching the 118s after getting the 110s I might sell them and custom order some Jeffs in a tour layup. Anybody here have two pairs of ON3Ps (110 and 118) and find themselves never touching the wider ones?

[EWG]

New ski (to me) day tomorrow. Breaking out the new 108/187 woods I just picked up from pickles. Can’t wait!