Page 286 of 594 FirstFirst ... 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 ... LastLast
Results 7,126 to 7,150 of 14839
  1. #7126
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    5,162
    Was taking care of
    Some business in Tacoma today and snapped this pic...Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_3132.JPG 
Views:	316 
Size:	578.7 KB 
ID:	292122
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  2. #7127
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a parallel universe
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by jackattack View Post
    Based on my experience with the Steeple. When the BG goes on a diet it becomes a noodle. A shorter, touring oriented SG would not be a noodle.
    Well that's disappointing to hear.

  3. #7128
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    ahead
    Posts
    153
    I have to say I find that kind of hard to believe. My BG's flex pretty damn stiff. Great for inbounds chop, but if I were taking them into the backcountry I'd happily have them flex 20% softer.

  4. #7129
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post
    since C&Ds apparently are back in stock today re Insta - in case you wanna buy, here is a pick of the rocker profiles of 184s



    pure gold yes.
    Ive looked for some reviews on the C&Ds but can’t find much besides older ones when the ski was quite a bit different. From what I’ve read it sounds like the C&D has become a wider BG. Do you own a pair? If you had to choose one to be the wider ski in your quiver would you go BG or C&D?

  5. #7130
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    2,282
    I have yet to try my pair (already posted but I think one more depiction is in order). If you need convincing i suggest you read Adrgha´s and MHSP1497´s posts earlier in this thread (look up their users) - they sure as hell seem to get along with theirs

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BG CD.jpg 
Views:	347 
Size:	1.45 MB 
ID:	292186

    And yes, C&Ds has morphed into wider BGs (identical rocker profile that yields a wider range of applications than the OG version imho) with tour flex as stock. Their tails are still very supportive, but RES+tour layup noses should make for awesome float. The change in shape//rocker has made them a bit more versatile.

    If easy of pivoting and float together with bomber construction is what you are after then they should be surefire winner.

    As for which I would choose - hard to tell. BGs seem more versatile and better at crushing through stuff. Yet my first pair of 179 BGs and i did not get along. I will report back after trying the new pair depicted above. I think they/BGs will make a lot more sense on my new home mountain than my last, and C&Ds should be an appropriate powder weapon. Time will tell, but they for sure are a bit different horses for different courses. If you live in a snowrich environment - especially with blower pow - go C&D. More variable and dense coastal pow, BGs are hard to beat.

    Also - Powtron seemed to get along with his before he unfortunately wrecked his knee,.
    https://vimeo.com/315367025

  6. #7131
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    On the mountain
    Posts
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by m19ab1 View Post
    Ive looked for some reviews on the C&Ds but can’t find much besides older ones when the ski was quite a bit different. From what I’ve read it sounds like the C&D has become a wider BG. Do you own a pair? If you had to choose one to be the wider ski in your quiver would you go BG or C&D?
    Both... I wrote extensively about the Cease & Desist last season. Rode them a lot (19 days). Also have Billy Goats and 120mm Caylors. Different skis for different conditions, tho I rode the Cease & Desists WAY more. They’re rounder in flex, similar in quickness in trees, they float much better and don’t “plow” like the Billy Goat’s can in low-angle terrain. It’s far more likely that, in an average season, Billy Goat’s would be the right choice. I just got really, really lucky last season and didn’t ride mine much (1x).

    tl/dr: Cease & Desist is a magnificent ski, just need enough snow to justify 124mm underfoot, otherwise a Billy Goat has more versatility.

  7. #7132
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    22
    @kid-kapow and MHSP, thanks for the feedback! I read through some of your earlier post and they seem like a good fresh pow ski.

    I just got back into skiing over the last few seasons after a hiatus and ended up getting a pair Kartel 96’s in 176. I was looking to adding to the quiver for this season and had my mind made up getting a wildcat 108 in 184 but am still open minded for a deeper snow ski. C&D and the BG are definitely on top of my list, as well as possibly the Anima or full sized Wildcat.

  8. #7133
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    9,951
    Quote Originally Posted by m19ab1 View Post
    @kid-kapow and MHSP, thanks for the feedback! I read through some of your earlier post and they seem like a good fresh pow ski.

    I just got back into skiing over the last few seasons after a hiatus and ended up getting a pair Kartel 96’s in 176. I was looking to adding to the quiver for this season and had my mind made up getting a wildcat 108 in 184 but am still open minded for a deeper snow ski. C&D and the BG are definitely on top of my list, as well as possibly the Anima or full sized Wildcat.
    If running just a 2 ski quiver then look at the BG as the pow ski to compliment the K96’s. If running the K96, WC108 then personally I would do the cNd or another full on pow ski like my favorite one from a diff manufacturer.

  9. #7134
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by MHSP1497 View Post
    tl/dr: Cease & Desist is a magnificent ski, just need enough snow to justify 124mm underfoot, otherwise a Billy Goat has more versatility.
    I dailyd a 125 uf ski. I think versatility is more a function of the shape than actual width. I guarantee a Woodsy 124 would be waayyy more versatile, overall, than the C&D. But not necessarily more fun in the right conditions. Which is exactly why I asked Scott if one might be in the works.

    I've since been enlightened on the existence of a pretty much carbon copy of my dream daily....

  10. #7135
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    ColoRADo
    Posts
    5,946

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by kid-kapow View Post

    Also - Powtron seemed to get along with his before he unfortunately wrecked his knee,.
    https://vimeo.com/315367025
    Ahhhhhh I fucking love the CD and that day will remain with me forever.

    3.5 months out of surgery and squats and deadlifts are coming back! I’ll be slashing that slutty pow by March if all goes well
    You should have been here yesterday!

  11. #7136
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Lapping the pow with the GSA in the PNW
    Posts
    5,162
    The great thing about the C&D’s are that they are so accessible and quite versatile for a big powder ski. Soft snow biased - yes...deep day only...not quite.
    In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...

  12. #7137
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    On the mountain
    Posts
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    I dailyd a 125 uf ski. I think versatility is more a function of the shape than actual width. I guarantee a Woodsy 124 would be waayyy more versatile, overall, than the C&D. But not necessarily more fun in the right conditions. Which is exactly why I asked Scott if one might be in the works.

    I've since been enlightened on the existence of a pretty much carbon copy of my dream daily....
    Agreed, the shape makes them very approachable. On your daily news: Oh? Curious...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bandit Man View Post
    The great thing about the C&D’s are that they are so accessible and quite versatile for a big powder ski. Soft snow biased - yes...deep day only...not quite.
    Yeah, I rode mine in some “inappropriate” conditions and they were manageable. Just felt it in the knees more on firmer snow/sticking to groomers.

  13. #7138
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by MHSP1497 View Post
    Agreed, the shape makes them very approachable. On your daily news: Oh? Curious...
    Moment Commander 124
    Almost identical to Boneshakers.
    Rip a groomer
    Slay pow
    Predictable in steeps n funked out snow
    Slarve shit
    Destroy corn n mank

  14. #7139
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    26
    Sizing question for the Jeffrey 96.

    I will likely be picking up a set of Jeffrey 96s as an east coast daily driver. I'm 6'2" and currently ski either a 176cm park ski or a 188cm Ranger 108. The Jeffrey would mostly be a replacement for my current park sticks. I'll still be taking the occasional park lap, but most of my time is going to be in the trees or ripping groomers.

    What do you think about the 181 Jeffrey vs the 186? I'm weighing tight-tree maneuverability / ease of spinning of the 181 vs the longer effective edge (east coast ice) of the 186.

  15. #7140
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    Sizing question for the Jeffrey 96.

    I will likely be picking up a set of Jeffrey 96s as an east coast daily driver. I'm 6'2" and currently ski either a 176cm park ski or a 188cm Ranger 108. The Jeffrey would mostly be a replacement for my current park sticks. I'll still be taking the occasional park lap, but most of my time is going to be in the trees or ripping groomers.

    What do you think about the 181 Jeffrey vs the 186? I'm weighing tight-tree maneuverability / ease of spinning of the 181 vs the longer effective edge (east coast ice) of the 186.
    I'm 5'8 and have k98s in 181, no way I would go any smaller. I'm not spinning onto rails or anything but they are fine for small spins and tight spots. 186 all the way imo

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

  16. #7141
    Gman's Avatar
    Gman is offline Mack Master William Large
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Beserkley
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    Sizing question for the Jeffrey 96.

    I will likely be picking up a set of Jeffrey 96s as an east coast daily driver. I'm 6'2" and currently ski either a 176cm park ski or a 188cm Ranger 108. The Jeffrey would mostly be a replacement for my current park sticks. I'll still be taking the occasional park lap, but most of my time is going to be in the trees or ripping groomers.

    What do you think about the 181 Jeffrey vs the 186? I'm weighing tight-tree maneuverability / ease of spinning of the 181 vs the longer effective edge (east coast ice) of the 186.

    I’m 5’11 160lbs and ski the 181. I could ski the 186 if I needed to but being up in Vermont the extra length doesn’t do much for me. If I was out west more where things tend to be more open I’d be inclined to go longer.

  17. #7142
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    I’m 5’11 160lbs and ski the 181. I could ski the 186 if I needed to but being up in Vermont the extra length doesn’t do much for me. If I was out west more where things tend to be more open I’d be inclined to go longer.
    How is the edge hold when conditions are really firm or even icy? I've nver had a ski with that much rocker before

  18. #7143
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    How is the edge hold when conditions are really firm or even icy?
    firm...meh
    icy....nope

    but my edges are about as sharp as spoons, ymmv

  19. #7144
    Gman's Avatar
    Gman is offline Mack Master William Large
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Beserkley
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    How is the edge hold when conditions are really firm or even icy? I've nver had a ski with that much rocker before
    If you're worried about edge hold with the jeffrey, it won't matter if its a 181 or 186, you'll have the same issues on an icy day. I use the kartel on softer days or when there is a little bit of new snow whether its manmade or not. On the firmer days, I tend to stick to my wrens. I haven't skied the woodsman but it could be a decent best of both worlds ski.

    I have kartel 181's and the issue I have on icy days has more to do with how the tails release, don't grab as much as my wren's.

  20. #7145
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bay Area / Tahoe
    Posts
    2,474
    Would also agree Kartels can be a bit sketch on ice and hard pack. Anything soft (including groomers) is fine, but steep ice wasn’t a strong point on my Kartel 116s. Jeronimos (similar to kartel 98) were better though.

    If you ski a lot of hardpack and don’t have a narrower ski in the quiver, woodsman might be the way to go

  21. #7146
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    26
    Was expecting to hear that they're not great on ice, but you all are actually scaring me off a bit. Keep in mind I'm used to skiing on some beat up Armada park skis (full camber though).

    Is a Jeffrey 96 a realistic east coast quiver of one for all but the deepest days?

  22. #7147
    Gman's Avatar
    Gman is offline Mack Master William Large
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Beserkley
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by _Ryan_ View Post
    Was expecting to hear that they're not great on ice, but you all are actually scaring me off a bit. Keep in mind I'm used to skiing on some beat up Armada park skis (full camber though).

    Is a Jeffrey 96 a realistic east coast quiver of one for all but the deepest days?
    Is there a reason you're looking at the jeffrey and not the woodsman or wren? If I was going to buy another east coast ski I'd be crushing the wren 96 Ti. The jeffreys like to be skied with more of a laid back approach while the wrens like to be driven and require more of a forward/neutral stance. The jeffrey will probably be stiffer than your beat armada park ski but it's not designed to be an ice ski. It can do it but other skis from ON3P would be a better tool.

  23. #7148
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    8,298
    Skis that are good on ice: race skis
    Skis that are not good on ice: beat up old Armada park skis

    The Jeffrey may not be an amazing ice ski, but when your frame of reference is beater park skis, they'll be fine. Yeah the running length is shorter, but they're also most likely way stiffer torsionally. They'll do fine.
    Last edited by adrenalated; 09-10-2019 at 01:34 PM.

  24. #7149
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    Is there a reason you're looking at the jeffrey and not the woodsman or wren? If I was going to buy another east coast ski I'd be crushing the wren 96 Ti. The jeffreys like to be skied with more of a laid back approach while the wrens like to be driven and require more of a forward/neutral stance. The jeffrey will probably be stiffer than your beat armada park ski but it's not designed to be an ice ski. It can do it but other skis from ON3P would be a better tool.
    I'll still be skiing park on this ski (but a lot less than I used to). I've thought a lot about the woodsman or the master blaster but I'm not ready to give up the versatility of a full twin.

    Still want to slide the occasional rail, land and ski switch pop off of rollers etc

  25. #7150
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Driving2VT
    Posts
    4,582

    ON3P SKIS Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    I’m 5’11 160lbs and ski the 181. I could ski the 186 if I needed to but being up in Vermont the extra length doesn’t do much for me. If I was out west more where things tend to be more open I’d be inclined to go longer.
    Gman, you in VT now or just ski here? Thought you were MA based.
    Uno mas

Posting Permissions

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