Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 72
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SW CO
    Posts
    5,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    And they don't respond well to driving hard forward... neutral and balanced is their jam
    True, but IME they tolerate being driven better than many other pow skis like the Kartel 116, Hoji/Ren, etc. IME, they also really shine in dense PNW snow vs the 5% CO and UT pow.

    I also think that Rob's problem was likely that they were just too small. Or maybe he didn't click with the ski, nothing wrong with that. But it's interesting that he said he couldn't get the tips to float because I can't get that RES tip to sink and it's one of the defining characteristics of the ski in my mind. But then again I'm 165# on the 191 with a fairly bottom-heavy physique and a pretty new skool stance.
    Last edited by auvgeek; 11-08-2018 at 12:02 PM.
    "Alpine rock and steep, deep powder are what I seek, and I will always find solace there." - Bean Bowers

    photos

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,097

    ON3P Billy Goat Vs. Other Powder Skis

    If the BG is sinking, then you arent going fast enough!

    In all seriousness, there are much better floating skis for really soft and light powder. I think BGs are best for floating on top of medium to heavier snow. In lighter fluff, they can sink slightly, but its not a big deal at all.

    I thought the 2017 C&D was a little bit of a handful in tight trees, but it was not even close to “unstable at speed”. C&Ds wanted speed like my Supergoats.

    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    panhandle locdog
    Posts
    7,836
    Quote Originally Posted by rob stokes View Post
    Just to be devils advocate....I didn’t think the BG’s floated very well. I am 190lbs, and skied the 184’s which may be too small I guess. Other pow skis I love are the 184 Katana and 190 lotus 120 so I think it’s more of a mount point thing than a length.

    Build quality was awesome on the On3p’s, they are heavy as fuck (much more than stated weight on website) and damp and stable in soft chop. Really liked them in shallow chop, slush and crud....just not the deep. Couldn’t get the tips to float in deep wet pow at all.

    I am of a very top heavy physique and drive the tips old school, so didn’t like Hoji’s either, maybe if you like more cantered mounts you will like the BG more.

    Just wanted to post an alternate view.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    As a more chunky fellow myself. (210)

    189/191/SG. 184 is too short.

    And I agree with Da Juice, they are better in maritime snow than dry interior type snow.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,097

    ON3P Billy Goat Vs. Other Powder Skis

    But thats not a dig on them. They are the best maritime snow skis I have ever used.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,296
    I actually think BGs float just fine in dry, light interior snow. Certainly better than any other ski of similar width that I've used.

    But yes, there are days in CO where a wider ski is nice. Deep days, especially if you are touring and skiing lower slope angles, a wider ski is helpful. But that's the case with all 115mm-ish skis in dry light snow.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    3,097

    ON3P Billy Goat Vs. Other Powder Skis

    I meant compared against other 115-120mm wide skis. Especially the Kartel 116 or JJ, but even Moment Governor. I have gotten some sinkage on BGs in dry stuff at slower to medium, “just f’ing around” speeds. Im 220lbs though.

    The 196 Governor is noticeably lighter and softer, that with the length make it float like a champ in soft dry snow. JJs and K116s need no explanation, they were designed to make slower speeds in deep fluff easy.. However this is not a bad trait IMO. I’ll make that trade in a heartbeat. The K116/JJ and also the Governor, cannot do what the BG can do in maritime mank. Not even close, it’s a night and day difference. And this minor fluff performance gripe is not even slightly noticeable in open terrain or with any speed. Go over 20mph and they work amazing in fluff. Not even close to a true “submarine” as say a Head Monster 108.

    On the other hand, the Steeple 112 was one of the best soft and light snow skis I have ever tried! So it aint RES at fault. Thats obvious though. S112s were right up there with an Armada elf shoe skis that were wider. Impressive. Not as good at mashing through maritime chunk, crusts or crud as the BG though, but RES made it better than a JJ/Kartel for that.

    I think the BG and Rx float and cut through pretty similarly in all types of 3D snow. Rx being a bit more carvey and traditional feeling, BG being surfier and more pivoty RES feeling.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    873
    Quote Originally Posted by flowing alpy View Post
    Line EP Pro float like an even bigger boat on a treadmill
    I miss those big floppy bastards. Never should have sold them.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by auvgeek View Post
    Who says the C&D is unstable at speed and also hard to handle in tight trees? Genuinely curious.
    Quote Originally Posted by kwilder View Post
    I
    There's an older review on blister reviews that describes them this way, as well as an old thread here. These are both 5+ years old, so I know the design of the ski may have changed. I guess what makes the Kartel 116 different than the Billy goat? I'm not looking for a 1 ski quiver. I use my Line's for days that aren't fresh
    Believe the last CD they had was pre-RES, so aways back.

    BG and K116 are super different - primarily in balance. Kartel 116 is more playful and neutral, BG wants to be skied a bit forward over your forebody and has far less tail.

    BG more soft snow specific - it can handle to and from the lifts but Kartel 116 will carve a more complete turn.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    We really needed another Billy Goat thread?!
    I took almost...2+ weeks off from this place after the last thread, mostly because I felt like I was this guy living in a live action BIlly Madison scene.

    Name:  594bfbb4b00c077635fab8873549f770.png
Views: 2179
Size:  310.2 KB

    Quote Originally Posted by rob stokes View Post
    Just to be devils advocate....I didn’t think the BG’s floated very well. I am 190lbs, and skied the 184’s which may be too small I guess. Other pow skis I love are the 184 Katana and 190 lotus 120 so I think it’s more of a mount point thing than a length.

    Build quality was awesome on the On3p’s, they are heavy as fuck (much more than stated weight on website) and damp and stable in soft chop. Really liked them in shallow chop, slush and crud....just not the deep. Couldn’t get the tips to float in deep wet pow at all.

    I am of a very top heavy physique and drive the tips old school, so didn’t like Hoji’s either, maybe if you like more cantered mounts you will like the BG more.

    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I am sure we've talked about this before, but as a reminder, how tall are you? Could just be too short. Second, balance on the BG is ideally driven over the forebody, not the tips. The concept of RES is predicated on width in the forebody of the skis, so you float but can keep the ski skinnier. If you over-lever that space, you lose the advantage of the RES from a float perspective. Hope that makes sense.

    Balance wise, I believe Hoji is a bit more centered, but similar thing. If you overdrive the tips you can over level the ski. Something like a Wren 114 you can lean into much more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    Absolutely too small for you. And they don't respond well to driving hard forward... neutral and balanced is their jam, as you noted.

    Sorry, but I gotta rebut your review. Good to confirm these points tho.

    Your claim on the weight sounds like bullshit... stated weight is accurate. Bamboo is heavy, no doubt... but they aren't misleading anyone.
    He's giving accurate info on the weight. That said, should be noted that they were bought on proform and were a blem for weight (this specific pair of BGs has already been discussed at length in the ON3P thread). When I looked up at the time, it was the heaviest skis out of that run.

    Most brands use proform/demos to clear out any non-major structural blems. We'll proform blems for weight, any base/sidewall/topsheet scratches that happen in manufacturing, any visual issues in the topsheet or base printing, etc, Basically, if it won't affect durability, it could be marked as such and sold at discount or end up in a demo fleet.

    With weight, we track all core & ski weights and monitor both for things that fall outside our set range. Obviously, with a natural material in bamboo there is a range of weight variance we (and any other manufacturer) have to manage. With cores, we use it to scrape cores that are out of weight, and then if the finished ski also is outside weight range, it gets flagged and marked as a weight blem.

    It is not super common to have a weight blem, but they happen enough it is something we track and was the case with this particular pair of 184cm BGs.
    Seriously, this can’t turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PNW -> MSO
    Posts
    7,889
    Ok, thanks.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    2,282
    since we are on the topic of weight: i seem to remember Luke or somebody from Moment mentioning that die cut bases enabled a substantial weight savings together with their sidewall construction and glass+carbon integrated matrix. While Moment's take on eliminating weight yet retaining full on charginess seems a bit Winnie the Poohesque marketing talk, that doesn't necessarily mean that is wrong

    Seeing how well the standard green ON3P base would work as a die cut, is going down that route something you have considered? If not for all, then perhaps for tour lay ups? (if die cut really is lighter that is)

    i guess it is more labor intensive, but die cut bases sure look superbly amazing (not that your current bases does not)

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    since we are on the topic of weight: i seem to remember Luke or somebody from Moment mentioning that die cut bases enabled a substantial weight savings together with their sidewall construction and glass+carbon integrated matrix. While Moment's take on eliminating weight yet retaining full on charginess seems a bit Winnie the Poohesque marketing talk, that doesn't necessarily mean that is wrong

    Seeing how well the standard green ON3P base would work as a die cut, is going down that route something you have considered? If not for all, then perhaps for tour lay ups? (if die cut really is lighter that is)

    i guess it is more labor intensive, but die cut bases sure look superbly amazing (not that your current bases does not)
    There would be some weight savings from losing the epoxy ink, but nothing too crazy. Moment is killing it on weight primarily in their cores. Cap helps, but they also still run a pretty thick, strong sidewall. I believe the thickness of the epoxy ink on our bases is around 0.15mm, so even with all the surface area on the base, not a ton of weight. Not nothing, but talking in the low tens of grams per ski.

    Diecuts wouldn't suddenly make a 100% bamboo core, thick base & edge, full sidewall tour ski light. Cores are where all the savings are being made.

    We are generally always talking about ways to make the skis better. Diecuts would likely require a bit of a different graphic, as we would lose the pattern in the base. Marketing wise, the green bases have likely been the best, most cost effective marketing tool we've ever done (thanks Apple, who we stole the idea from).
    Seriously, this can’t turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    2,282


    yeah, i get that tour lay ups with die cut won't all of a sudden make the skis weigh the same as a carbon touring ski, but every little bit helps i guess. I've been told by a reputable dealer as well as reading marketing hype from brands that use pre-preg that a lot of weight can be saved by optimizing/minimizing glue/epoxy use (+ the aforementioned Moment info), thus the question. Thanks for the in depth reply!

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    panhandle locdog
    Posts
    7,836
    Why does everyone want lighter skis? I say make them heavier.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    OR
    Posts
    1,937
    ^Have you tried frame bindings

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    18,583
    In cuz I luv me sum BGs.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post


    yeah, i get that tour lay ups with die cut won't all of a sudden make the skis weigh the same as a carbon touring ski, but every little bit helps i guess. I've been told by a reputable dealer as well as reading marketing hype from brands that use pre-preg that a lot of weight can be saved by optimizing/minimizing glue/epoxy use (+ the aforementioned Moment info), thus the question. Thanks for the in depth reply!
    Like I said, not nothing. Every little bit helps. For what it is worth, the reasons we would make a move to diecuts wouldn't be weight, but other factors. We talk though as many options as we can in here.

    Prepreg is all about standardization and consistency with optimized saturation - so yes, if you are doing super light skis, it is certainly tech that makes sense to use. We've changed how we layup skis in the past 12 months specifically for epoxy saturation and weight consistency in mind. Essentially what they are marketing on is that you are getting no excess epoxy in the layup. So it isn't inherently lighter than a traditional wet layup, it's just pre-build to have the exact proper saturation and no excess weight. That takes management and skill to do in a traditional wet layup.
    Seriously, this can’t turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    65
    It is not super common to have a weight blem
    Interesting info there -- thanks Iggy. I bought a pair of 2016 189s from PowTron's demo fleet and they're quite, um... robust. I like having friends grab them off the roof rack give me a wtf look. But they're weightless on the feet.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Whistler, BC
    Posts
    1,495
    I am sure we've talked about this before, but as a reminder, how tall are you? Could just be too short. Second, balance on the BG is ideally driven over the forebody, not the tips. The concept of RES is predicated on width in the forebody of the skis, so you float but can keep the ski skinnier. If you over-lever that space, you lose the advantage of the RES from a float perspective. Hope that makes sense.

    Balance wise, I believe Hoji is a bit more centered, but similar thing. If you overdrive the tips you can over level the ski. Something like a Wren 114 you can lean into much more.



    He's giving accurate info on the weight. That said, should be noted that they were bought on proform and were a blem for weight (this specific pair of BGs has already been discussed at length in the ON3P thread). When I looked up at the time, it was the heaviest skis out of that run.

    Most brands use proform/demos to clear out any non-major structural blems. We'll proform blems for weight, any base/sidewall/topsheet scratches that happen in manufacturing, any visual issues in the topsheet or base printing, etc, Basically, if it won't affect durability, it could be marked as such and sold at discount or end up in a demo fleet.

    With weight, we track all core & ski weights and monitor both for things that fall outside our set range. Obviously, with a natural material in bamboo there is a range of weight variance we (and any other manufacturer) have to manage. With cores, we use it to scrape cores that are out of weight, and then if the finished ski also is outside weight range, it gets flagged and marked as a weight blem.

    It is not super common to have a weight blem, but they happen enough it is something we track and was the case with this particular pair of 184cm BGs.[/QUOTE]



    We have talked about this, and I have edited my post to make it clear that I wasn’t complaining about the weight. I think that’s what made them so stable in chop/slush.

    5,9 and 190lbs, pretty sure I didn’t have enough tip. If I’m skiing a ski in the 185-188cm range I need a set back mount. I’d probably be better on a ski with this mount if it was 190+. I have always had a hard time with ski sizing due to being short (ish) but heavy (ish).



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by rob stokes View Post
    We have talked about this, and I have edited my post to make it clear that I wasn’t complaining about the weight. I think that’s what made them so stable in chop/slush.

    5,9 and 190lbs, pretty sure I didn’t have enough tip. If I’m skiing a ski in the 185-188cm range I need a set back mount. I’d probably be better on a ski with this mount if it was 190+. I have always had a hard time with ski sizing due to being short (ish) but heavy (ish).
    Hey Rob - all good on my end. Just been dragged into a few threads lately and just want to make sure everything is out in the open at the outset.

    Re: sizing - I would have said you could go 184cm if we talked beforehand (maybe we did) so I would say you are likely just more aggressive in how you drive the skis than the design likes. I do think 189cm would be more supportive, but it isn't a ski for everyone and if you want tips you can drive really hard and have that hard-charging old school style, definitely understand where you are coming from. When I moved from skiing a 191cm Wrens to 191cm BGs it took a balance change for me, but one that I was happy with once I made it.
    Seriously, this can’t turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,296
    Quote Originally Posted by iggyskier View Post
    When I moved from skiing a 191cm Wrens to 191cm BGs it took a balance change for me, but one that I was happy with once I made it.
    I happily ski both 186 Wren 112s and 186 Billy Goats but I agree, there is a balance change required between the two skis. It's not massive, and I do it without noticing now, but I have had friends say that my stance is notably more upright when I'm on the BGs vs the Wrens.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier View Post
    Why does everyone want lighter skis? I say make them heavier.
    I could not agree more... No way do I want a light/lighter ski for the resort... Backcountry touring I get it, but small side country no thanks...

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    3,083
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    I happily ski both 186 Wren 112s and 186 Billy Goats but I agree, there is a balance change required between the two skis. It's not massive, and I do it without noticing now, but I have had friends say that my stance is notably more upright when I'm on the BGs vs the Wrens.
    Yep. It's forebody vs. tips. Not like a change to a Kartel or Magnus, but its pulled back just a bit. It affects hard snow too - if you push heavily into the tips that you take the pressure off the part of the ski that creates a radius and that is where they get washy, as you start to lose any sort of effective edge integrity.
    Seriously, this can’t turn into yet another ON3P thread....

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    4,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier View Post
    Why does everyone want lighter skis? I say make them heavier.
    Easier to load on your Yakima racks and carry to the lift.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    9,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Leavenworth Skier View Post
    Why does everyone want lighter skis? I say make them heavier.
    That is exactly why I did my new Lhasa with the heavy cores.
    Quote Originally Posted by Undertow View Post
    I could not agree more... No way do I want a light/lighter ski for the resort... Backcountry touring I get it, but small side country no thanks...
    Yup.
    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    Easier to load on your Yakima racks and carry to the lift.
    Do you even lift, bro?

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NCW
    Posts
    4,577
    Quote Originally Posted by 2FUNKY View Post
    Do you even lift, bro?
    Just supergoats.

Posting Permissions

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