ON3P SKIS Discussion

[cocoapuff]

SB have a look at their Retro topsheets on custom builder

[TexasGortex]

I have had a few days on my 108 BG Tours in the resort (with attack demo bindings on them).

They hold their own, and do well in soft snow but they definitely chatter and get thrown around. On wider Pow specific ski (BG or C&D) I think it’d be fine, but for skiing any real variable, ice, or hardpack - definitely wouldn’t want it. Certainly not for the Woodsmen 102. Not much fun. (That being said, they are still better than many other touring layups for the resort)

Also, can I make a request to bring back the 191 asym banana rocker (2018?) Cease and Desists? I love my current pair so much I want another haha. Been skiing them in Tahoe with the massive storms we got the past few weeks, and man are they fun. Soo fast and confidence inspiring, and yet so quick side to side. In really deep heavy wet snow, they make such a big difference over almost any other ski. Most people have a bad time, even with standard 115mm waist type Pow skis, but the C&D’s are like trampolines, just gliding and popping over everything. I got fresh tracks all day because they allowed me to keep enough speed to get over to terrain most people couldn’t.


Does ON3P ever offer custom skis with old profiles?

I’m about to list a pair of all black asym 189cm C&D for sale. I think they are 21 models? One day of use, one mount. Pretty damn minty. I just haven’t gotten a post up because I have a lot of gear to list. PM if interested and I’ll get some pictures.

[auvgeek]

Does ON3P ever offer custom skis with old profiles?

I don't think so. I would 100% buy a 2014 191 Caylor in a tour layup and probably also a C&D in the tour layup before they reduced the rocker to be the same as the BG.

[justo8484]

Just scored a pair of 187 Woodsman 102 w/ clear topsheet. Had a SW blem.

One thing is, they have the Tour layup. I have never been interested in buying the tour layup, or quite frankly a 102mm DD, but had a few extra beers that night, it was a screamin deal, and that clear top sheet looks so damn good......

Any one have insight on how the tours skis, having trouble finding much info or reviews online. Shit having trouble finding info on the Wood102 in general.

I will be Teleing them (I know you don't care) but I tele like I downhill. My other tele skis are OG (2011) 193 Bibby pros, 190 Mindbender Ti and 189 Megawatts.

if you end up not digging these, i've been interested in adding something along these lines to the quiver to augment touring on my J108s...

[shroom]

I don't think so. I would 100% buy a 2014 191 Caylor in a tour layup and probably also a C&D in the tour layup before they reduced the rocker to be the same as the BG.

are you liking that ski? i may have missed. it is not light hah

[BeHuWe]

These skis are too much fun. Jeffrey 118 Tour.

Someone else on the Jeff tour train! I have a Jeff 110 with the stiff/tour layup to compliment my inbounds stiff/regular Jeff’s. What layup did you end up with and how do you like it? 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.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[goolick]

Can anyone comment on mango 110 all mountain performance? Are they much different from the kartels? From the specs a mango 110 186 vs. a jeffrey 110 186 are pretty similar (just a little smaller overall)

[CYJ]

Can anyone comment on mango 110 all mountain performance? Are they much different from the kartels? From the specs a mango 110 186 vs. a jeffrey 110 186 are pretty similar (just a little smaller overall)

Curious about this as well. One thing I don't see mentioned in the specs are the tune. Might be wrong but I think Mangos come with a slightly different, more park focused tune. Wonder if it applies to the Mango 110s.

[goolick]

Curious about this as well. One thing I don't see mentioned in the specs are the tune. Might be wrong but I think Mangos come with a slightly different, more park focused tune. Wonder if it applies to the Mango 110s.

Description on the site says factory tune for 110s, as opposed to park detune for 90/100

[kid-kapow]

Can anyone comment on mango 110 all mountain performance? Are they much different from the kartels? From the specs a mango 110 186 vs. a jeffrey 110 186 are pretty similar (just a little smaller overall)

The mount point of mango110s is forward of jeff110s, center or -2 (can't recall) to the jeff's -4.something.

I would go jeff unless you plan to swerve the shit out of the mountain on your rare voyage outside of the park/urban on a wider ski (aka how mango skis).

A center mounted 110 ski is a very specific tool for a specific kind of rider imho, whereas the jeff110 actually fits a lot more riders than the mount point suggests. Jeffs do very well as an all mountain ride for skiers with a more upright/modern stance who likes progressively mounted skis. Jeff110s are awesome at everything from larking about, boosting off stuff to going pretty damn fast. Their reputation as a killeer ski is more than deserved.

neither should come with the park tune (detuned underfoot for rails) as standard.

[CascadeLuke]

Wanted to give props to the ON3P crew on a job well done for the Charlie Murphy’s. Cascade Jr had his “best day ever” in some shallow snow playing hooky with me today. He felt like a big kid and charged well on a +13 cm length bump. Including checking off the next more difficult chair at the resort.
Huge high-5 to Norseman! This was an older pair making the rounds (holding up well) but think we’ll order factory on his next bump as a result. He was stoked to be on ON3Ps like dad..

[Norseman]

Word.

No sense in those dope lil skis sitting in my garage!

[Ski_ppy]

I've been meaning to post these. Wren tour, picked them up during the custom sale over the offseason, haven't gotten around to mounting them yet. 96 under the boot, 184 tip to tail cause i'm a basic bitch.

Big shout out to kid-kapow for helping convince me I need yet another pair of sticks, it didn't take much. No wife to worry about so fuck it. Life's short, Ski fast.

[kid-kapow]

He was stoked to be on ON3Ps like dad..

#winning

Big shout out to kid-kapow for helping convince me I need yet another pair of sticks, it didn't take much. No wife to worry about so fuck it. Life's short, Ski fast.

Enabling good life decisions in the form of buying skis is a speciality of mine Can't wait to hear how you two get along. Wren96tours should be awesome

[EWG]

PSA: Stupidly cheap old Caylors on the front range. Not my ad.

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace...ibextid=6ojiHh

[skuff]

Not ideal, but had fun at beer league. 191 Jeffrey 108

[jhel3]

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!

[kid-kapow]

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

I've only skied wood102s in the 50/50 layup, but my wd110s feel more alike to my wd108s than the wd102s. All are 182s, stock stiffness. 108s and 110s just feel like more ski than the 102 because they are (weight)

192s sounds like the way to go regardless of model at your weight / height. The long rocker zones together with lots of splay will make them nimble regardless, and the added effective edge and stiffness should be welcome on hard snow at your weight.

[auvgeek]

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!

The 108 morphed into the 110. I can't remember what the 102 was before, maybe 96?

I would go 110. The rocker profile on both the 102 and 110 is the same so neither will be *great* on hard snow. So I'd pick the 110 every day. At your size, I'd go 192 and mount +1 but ymmv.

Another option that gets a lot of love is the MFree 108 (or Rossi Sender Squad). I believe the MFree 108 has more torsional stiffness than ON3P's bamboo, so it would have better edge hold when things get firm. I haven't skied it, but there are a LOT of people with a 2-ski quiver of the Billy Goat and MFree 108. Because you specifically call out edge hold, I think it's worth a look.

Edit: see kid-kapow's post below disputing some things I speculatively said.

[auvgeek]

are you liking that ski? i may have missed. it is not light hah

I am LOVING your Caylors. The mount point, the length, the heft, the lack of taper ... everything about that ski is amazing. Excellent complement to the 191 BG of the same era for more playful side hits, jibs, stupid CO flat, stumpy tree skiing, etc. I know they're not light, but that just adds to the charm and stability.

I was toying with throwing a lighter binding on them like a Tecton, but said screw it and went P18 like always. Maybe after my sled is up and running again, I'll CAST them into the heaviest touring setup ever...

Edit: my earlier post about wanting a tour-layup 191 Caylor is just that I really like the shape of the Caylor and now I want a pair for touring.

[kid-kapow]

I believe the MFree 108 has more torsional stiffness than ON3P's bamboo, so it would have better edge hold when things get firm.

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.

[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