It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
.MASSHOLE.Ah thank you. I knew it was a 190+, I just forgot to check how long.
2x aka the Aever flex.
Glad they got that many sold. If I lived out west I would have definitely picked a pair up.
Yeah the Aever flex is 2x stiffer than a Normal BG.. at least that is what they say. Which baffles me cause I know I'm a small dude but I can imagine being on something 2x stiffer than a current BG. The new SG is also 118 underfoot... so a tad bit wider.
hopefully powtron can confirm how many they actually sold.
you have 3 flex choices with the SG. Normal BG flex, 1.5x BG flex, or 2x BG flex.
i think in their pre order run that ended last night they sold about 15 pair
that's sick. if i still lived in real mountains with real snow and real cliffs id be thinking about some of these to replace my old katanas. excited to see the reviews
SofaKingSickthat's sick. if i still lived in real mountains with real snow and real cliffs id be thinking about some of these to replace my old katanas. excited to see the reviews
Can't imagine reviews are gonna be any different than current BG. Basically just a BG for bigger people haha
when over 6’3â€, 220lbs, its less about “bitching†than you could ever realize.
The vast majority of people don't need to ski a 190+ ski and I'm speaking from a lot of experience given that I've skied longer skis than almost anyone on this forum (218 cm, 210cm, and 193cm).
Being 6'2 and 220+ doesn't automatically require a ski that is over 190 cm. A stiffer ski>a longer ski.
2 or 3cm in length is nothing, unless it's in your pants.
**This post was edited on Nov 7th 2017 at 1:26:07pm
when over 6’3”, 220lbs, its less about “bitching” than you could ever realize.
Every cm counts at that size. Flex as well.
sure, there are skis out there that are longer. But not as versatile, durable, etc etc.
trying to get my buddy to pick up a pair next year if he can't find a pair of 191 caylors laying around. He's about 6'2 ish and maybe 200 pounds ish... he's outgrown his 183 park skis and his 185 pow skis and needs a real tool!
.MASSHOLE.The vast majority of people don't need to ski a 190+ ski and I'm speaking from a lot of experience given that I've skied longer skis than almost anyone on this forum (218 cm, 210cm, and 193cm).
Being 6'2 and 220+ doesn't automatically require a ski that is over 190 cm. A stiffer ski>a longer ski.
2 or 3cm in length is nothing, unless it's in your pants.
**This post was edited on Nov 7th 2017 at 1:26:07pm
That’s why I said “AND ski very hard”. When I say very, I mean VERY. Every day, on Big Mountains like Big Sky, Mammoth, Squaw, Jackson.
You can only speculate, you have no experience being that size. Your word means nothing on this matter.
I have learned a lot about you in that post. You speak like you have experience, when you are just speculating. You probably do that more than I previously expected.
just as I was coming around to you too..
I used to be 175lbs, when I was young. then 185, then 195, now over 205lbs. Every pound demands a longer and stiffer ski, it’s almost “exponential”. I like skis that are both long and stiff, not one or the other.
Every cm counts when your this size, and again you would have no clue. No further comment needed.
BeetleJuiceThat’s why I said “AND ski very hard”. When I say very, I mean VERY. Every day, on Big Mountains like Big Sky, Mammoth, Squaw, Jackson.
You can only speculate, you have no experience being that size. Your word means nothing on this matter.
I have learned a lot about you in that post. You speak like you have experience, when you are just speculating. You probably do that more than I previously expected.
just as I was coming around to you too..
I used to be 175lbs, when I was young. then 185, then 195, now over 205lbs. Every pound demands a longer and stiffer ski, it’s almost “exponential”. I like skis that are both long and stiff, not one or the other.
Every cm counts when your this size, and again you would have no clue. No further comment needed.
See, the funny thing is, I have experience skiing on skis that size in a lot of different conditions and actually skied them hard.
Let me ask you, can you tell the difference between a 191 and a 193? Or a 191 and a 195? How about a 205 and a 207? Or 211 and 215?
When I was racing the ONLY difference I could tell between ski brands was the stiffness. And I can tell you for a fact all my friends and competitors felt the same way. A guy who as 6'2 225 wasn't going to go ski a brand because of the extra 2cms, he was going to find a ski that offered a stiffer flex.
Every pound doesn't demand a longer ski, it demands a stiffer ski.
If that wasn't the case you'd see a lot more 190+ skis out there because there are a lot of fatasses in this world who think they can ski hard.
**This post was edited on Nov 7th 2017 at 1:56:50pm
.MASSHOLE.See, the funny thing is, I have experience skiing on skis that size in a lot of different conditions and actually skied them hard.
Let me ask you, can you tell the difference between a 191 and a 193? Or a 191 and a 195? How about a 205 and a 207? Or 211 and 215?
When I was racing the ONLY difference I could tell between ski brands was the stiffness. And I can tell you for a fact all my friends and competitors felt the same way. A guy who as 6'2 225 wasn't going to go ski a brand because of the extra 2cms, he was going to find a ski that offered a stiffer flex.
Every pound doesn't demand a longer ski, it demands a stiffer ski.
If that wasn't the case you'd see a lot more 190+ skis out there because there are a lot of fatasses in this world who think they can ski hard.
**This post was edited on Nov 7th 2017 at 1:56:50pm
You are right about flex, but I just feel differently about length.
You could argue your way out of a paperbag, and make it sound good. I get it, you know everything.
I am speaking from experience, not speculation. I own 189 Goats, 191 Goats, and now AEverflex Supergoats.
4cm makes a big difference to me, idc what you would have me believe.
.MASSHOLE.See, the funny thing is, I have experience skiing on skis that size in a lot of different conditions and actually skied them hard.
Let me ask you, can you tell the difference between a 191 and a 193? Or a 191 and a 195? How about a 205 and a 207? Or 211 and 215?
When I was racing the ONLY difference I could tell between ski brands was the stiffness. And I can tell you for a fact all my friends and competitors felt the same way. A guy who as 6'2 225 wasn't going to go ski a brand because of the extra 2cms, he was going to find a ski that offered a stiffer flex.
Every pound doesn't demand a longer ski, it demands a stiffer ski.
If that wasn't the case you'd see a lot more 190+ skis out there because there are a lot of fatasses in this world who think they can ski hard.
**This post was edited on Nov 7th 2017 at 1:56:50pm
Between a 191 and a 193.. there's not a huge difference. But a 189 and a 193 there's a difference.
also, it's the flex choice that is really cool.
and you get that beefy, damp, durable ON3P feel with the RES and all that jazz.
yeah, you could get a 203cm or whatever it is with a faction ct 3.0, but that's not 118 underfoot, probably not as stiff, and dear god not near as durable or damp. Not that it's a bad ski, but very different.
the 193 on3p SG and the 196 4frnt Renegade probably come out to be the same size, but different skis in terms of stiffness (although stock ren is stiff, you can't go aever flex.) shape, versatility, etc.
Im not speaking from personal experience, as I am only 5'8" and 135 pounds at the moment (thanks firefighting), but yes, my best friend has a park ski that is the same length as my pow ski that is a bit big for me.. so yes, every cm and flex counts. Especially when you're looking for a good ski like ON3P
BeetleJuiceYou are right about flex, but I just feel differently about length.
You could argue your way out of a paperbag, and make it sound good. I get it, you know everything.
I am speaking from experience, not speculation. I own 189 Goats, 191 Goats, and now AEverflex Supergoats.
4cm makes a big difference to me, idc what you would have me believe.
I challenged you on TGR. Lets go.
As am I, for the 3rd time. I've skied a wide variety of lengths and jumps in ski size. I've gone from a 186 to a 191 and then 195. I've gone from a 205 to a 210 and then 215.
I couldn't care less about what length ski you ski, all I'm saying is the vast majority of the ski world doesn't need a ski that big nor can they tell the difference between a 191 and a 193. It's all mental. We're talking 1.57 inches or roughly the 1st digit on your thumb.
I have no desire for a dick-swinging contest, you go ski and enjoy your skis, I'll enjoy mine.
.lenconBetween a 191 and a 193.. there's not a huge difference. But a 189 and a 193 there's a difference.
also, it's the flex choice that is really cool.
and you get that beefy, damp, durable ON3P feel with the RES and all that jazz.
yeah, you could get a 203cm or whatever it is with a faction ct 3.0, but that's not 118 underfoot, probably not as stiff, and dear god not near as durable or damp. Not that it's a bad ski, but very different.
the 193 on3p SG and the 196 4frnt Renegade probably come out to be the same size, but different skis in terms of stiffness (although stock ren is stiff, you can't go aever flex.) shape, versatility, etc.
Im not speaking from personal experience, as I am only 5'8" and 135 pounds at the moment (thanks firefighting), but yes, my best friend has a park ski that is the same length as my pow ski that is a bit big for me.. so yes, every cm and flex counts. Especially when you're looking for a good ski like ON3P
Oh of course the shape and build make the ski act differently.
But we're talking about 1.5 inches. This isn't going from a 186 to a 195, it's half that.
Across brands it will likely make a difference, but on the same ski from the same company? It's all mental. Adding a stiffer core and flatter tail to the SBG is going to change it up more than adding 4cm to a regular BG.
Why do you keep bringing up dicks man?? I am talking about skis/skiing here..
It’s not all mental. It’s physics. 4cm extra, in the same ski design, adds weight too. When you add 7cm to a ski, say going from a 184 Katana or Monster 108, to a 191 Katana/Monster, it makes a HUGE difference in stability. Same with a 184 and 190 Bibby. 4cm may be less than 6 or 7, but it definitely still makes a difference that isnt just “in our heads”.
I think it makes a very noticable difference. When I was 175lbs, I did not feel this way. Every pound over that, I feel it becomes almost exponential, the amount of force you can apply to a ski. Length also helps with balance, sweetspot, and how much you can lean into the ski. InB4 you say “balance issues”, because I also rally on 179 K2 shreditor/pettitors.
3rd time! you are speaking from speculation, because you are not over 200lbs skiing those skis you listed, you are 150lbs.
.MASSHOLE.Oh of course the shape and build make the ski act differently.
But we're talking about 1.5 inches. This isn't going from a 186 to a 195, it's half that.
Across brands it will likely make a difference, but on the same ski from the same company? It's all mental. Adding a stiffer core and flatter tail to the SBG is going to change it up more than adding 4cm to a regular BG.
Idk man.
176 Kartel is too small for me, that's why I sold them. 181 is perfect. 186 is too big. Then again, I'm 5'8 and 135 pounds so I rely more on length than flex.
176 Kartel is too small for me, that's why I sold them. 181 is perfect. 186 is too big. Then again, I'm 5'8 and 135 pounds so I rely more on length than flex.
but a bigger size, the flex and length all counts
I'm guessing you do a lot of tricks on them though, correct?
Length in that case does make a difference. I'm no physics major but I'd be willing to bet that the longer a ski is, the more energy it takes to spin it around.
I'm not saying length doesn't matter, because it does. Going from a 185 to a FIS legal 192+ ski was a big jump, partially because they introduced a new min. radius, but also because it was an extra 2.3 inches per ski.
But a 189 to 191 BG (which is what this whole original disagreement was about) is nothing. 189 to 193 is meh, the new tail shape, width, and flex on the SBG will dictate more than the length.
Some people just like seeing the 190+ cm length.
It's a mental thing and I completely understand that.
If you were to ask me if I would prefer to ski a 179 or 183 I'd go 183 in a heartbeat. But I know that ultimately a stiffer 179 would be better for me than a 183 with a normal flex.
This is just my opinion based off my experiences so take it for what you will.
.MASSHOLE.I'm guessing you do a lot of tricks on them though, correct?
Length in that case does make a difference. I'm no physics major but I'd be willing to bet that the longer a ski is, the more energy it takes to spin it around.
I'm not saying length doesn't matter, because it does. Going from a 185 to a FIS legal 192+ ski was a big jump, partially because they introduced a new min. radius, but also because it was an extra 2.3 inches per ski.
But a 189 to 191 BG (which is what this whole original disagreement was about) is nothing. 189 to 193 is meh, the new tail shape, width, and flex on the SBG will dictate more than the length.
Some people just like seeing the 190+ cm length.
It's a mental thing and I completely understand that.
If you were to ask me if I would prefer to ski a 179 or 183 I'd go 183 in a heartbeat. But I know that ultimately a stiffer 179 would be better for me than a 183 with a normal flex.
This is just my opinion based off my experiences so take it for what you will.
I agree, 189 to 191 is nothing.. 189 to 193 is something however, even though it is minute. But at that size where you are limited, everything helps.
I love how you can put the wrenegade graphics on Kartels and vice versa, just wish that they could somehow remove where it says wrenegade on the bottom left. Its obviously not a huge deal but I would feel kinda odd having my Kartel say Wrenegade lol. Those veneers tho :)
Fiberglass and carbon exposed, and I can see just a sliver of the wood core. The website I'm looking at is saying copolymer string. Other suggestions on how to fix this?
I’m pissed I’m late to the pissing match on ski size, gaw dayem.
Crispy - marine grade epoxy, two sheets of uhmw plastic from a local plastic or marine supply place and c clamp the shit out of it to force fuck the everything back into place. You can sand down the extra epoxy later, heat it up and drip that shit in there deep. Just don’t breathe the fumes.
RudyGarmischI’m pissed I’m late to the pissing match on ski size, gaw dayem.
Crispy - marine grade epoxy, two sheets of uhmw plastic from a local plastic or marine supply place and c clamp the shit out of it to force fuck the everything back into place. You can sand down the extra epoxy later, heat it up and drip that shit in there deep. Just don’t breathe the fumes.
The UHMW plastic is just for something to clamp over the ski, right? What do I use to sand it down?
For all of the back and forth above on the Supergoat, Billy Goat, and length...
We made an older 191 Billy that was changed three years ago. It became a 189 by basically hacking the tail shape. The ski was in effect the same length, but we also did modify RES and taper points over the last three seasons to get the current, updated, asym Billy Goat.
With the Supergoat, it’s not just longer (189 vs 193), but it’s also wider (back where the old 191 BG used to be), has a slightly lower tail rocker due to that length, has three different carbon layup options (2” - stock, 3” - stiff, 4” - Aever), and a slightly longer turn radius. It is not just a longer BG.
With length discussions, I agree sometimes it’s not that big of a difference but it does depend on the brand, model, and layup to really have this discussion.
One great example is that our skis are a true tape pull...so your 186 Kartel 98 is actually 186cm. Measure someone else’s skis and you will find different. Our 184 Billygoat is the same length as many company’s 186-187 claimed ski length.
Not saying that is bad, we just choose to measure them to how long the ski actually is.
Type of ski matters more in the length debate, as well in regards to surface area. A 189 BG vs 193 SG is not just 5cm longer, but you have extra width through the whole ski (and larger radius) so when you add up the extra surface area over the length of a ski that is 193cm you will absolutely have a different feel underfoot beyond just 5cm overall length.
Race skis and the different length feel that used to be 205, 210, 215 weren’t as noticeable because they were all 65mm underfoot (I remember those days as I’m old as dirt, ha).
All great points but just wanted to spurt out my take on it.
Supergoats are starting production and wil be shipping out in the next few weeks. We were able to find more than 20 pair a great home and we are hyped to build them for the TGR crowd that requested them.
**This post was edited on Nov 9th 2017 at 10:52:32am
Crispy.The UHMW plastic is just for something to clamp over the ski, right? What do I use to sand it down?
The marine grade epoxy shouldn’t stick to it, so you can peel it off and not have the clamp get glued to the ski. In a pinch you can use wood or some other material but it’s messier.
Sharp edge vs sidewall. Even with the detune (underfoot & tips) and gummi (sidecut) edges can be really sharp first couple days on snow.
Ethan - hit me up direct (scott AT on3pskis DOT com) or at the info account and we'll send you some directions. You can also send em back to us and we'll fix it up and send them back to you. Actually a pretty easy fix if you've done it before.
The biggest thing you want to do here is keep water out. There is no carbon in that part of the ski (you are likely seeing rubber), but as long as you can keep water out of the core, you should be ok.
cooldickdudeI am 17 years old, 5' 5", and 135lbs.
Would the 171cm Kartel 108's be too big/ unmanageable for me?
Nah, if I were you I'd even consider a 176.
I am 5'8", 135 pounds (for now, thanks cardio and eating small, healthy portions lol) and found the 176 too small. I would be on a 181 next time I get a Kartel 108.
On3p’s have a lot of rocker, so they don’t “ski long”, but I find them to be more stable and damp than most of their competitors in a specific ski category, allowing you to go to the next size down and still be able to rally.
.lenconNah, if I were you I'd even consider a 176.
I am 5'8", 135 pounds (for now, thanks cardio and eating small, healthy portions lol) and found the 176 too small. I would be on a 181 next time I get a Kartel 108.
Just for reference, im 5"10" and 160. On the 181. also the first ski i've ever owned over 100mm width so I went on the small side. But I think its perfet, doesn't feel small or big.
cooldickdudeI am 17 years old, 5' 5", and 135lbs.
Would the 171cm Kartel 108's be too big/ unmanageable for me?
I would point you towards the 171 if you are going to be spending time on in the park, on rails, and also riding some all mountain with them.
(basically everywhere).
The 176 may be a little tall for you now, but are you done growing? Are you going to be going to college next year where you are for sure to gain 20 lbs ;) ?
Our skis measure true tape pull, so a 171cm is about 5'7" and the ski will be slightly taller than you. With that considered I would say to stick with the 171 for max versatility, but maybe go 176 if you feel you will still grow more and also want more speed, crud, powder performance over park ability.
So is the 3.6x9mm bit they/you guys recommend on the site like a standard thing or something, as far as mounting goes? I don't live in a ski town so it's not like there's an abundance of rad/good shops around. If I bring it somewhere are they gonna use some other incorrect bit by default or is this size a usual thing? Not trying to have these ruined.
And my skis are soooo close. They're half an hour from my house, presumably at some fedex distribution place. They got literally across the entire country in less than a week but they sat around in a distro center 30min away all day today.
DrZoidbergSo is the 3.6x9mm bit they/you guys recommend on the site like a standard thing or something, as far as mounting goes? I don't live in a ski town so it's not like there's an abundance of rad/good shops around. If I bring it somewhere are they gonna use some other incorrect bit by default or is this size a usual thing? Not trying to have these ruined.
And my skis are soooo close. They're half an hour from my house, presumably at some fedex distribution place. They got literally across the entire country in less than a week but they sat around in a distro center 30min away all day today.
3.6 x 9 is industry standard drill bit for non-metal skis.
You are good to go with the "regular" bit at any shop that mounts skis.
PowTron3.6 x 9 is industry standard drill bit for non-metal skis.
You are good to go with the "regular" bit at any shop that mounts skis.
When I got my K108's mounted I was sitting in the shop waiting because there was no wait for mounting skis. After 2 min of waiting the guy comes out holding the skis with no bindings and goes "this is forward and backwards right." He got confused because the top right and bottom left say ON3P. Dude almost mounted one of my bindings backward. Would have been so bad lol.
highpeakWhen I got my K108's mounted I was sitting in the shop waiting because there was no wait for mounting skis. After 2 min of waiting the guy comes out holding the skis with no bindings and goes "this is forward and backwards right." He got confused because the top right and bottom left say ON3P. Dude almost mounted one of my bindings backward. Would have been so bad lol.
So....we put the mount mark on the left sidewalls on ALL skis. Why? Because every jig we've ever seen has its boot sole locator on the left side. To mount on the wrong side would be to mount on a side with NO mount mark at all.
PowTron3.6 x 9 is industry standard drill bit for non-metal skis.
You are good to go with the "regular" bit at any shop that mounts skis.
Good to hear.
highpeakWhen I got my K108's mounted I was sitting in the shop waiting because there was no wait for mounting skis. After 2 min of waiting the guy comes out holding the skis with no bindings and goes "this is forward and backwards right." He got confused because the top right and bottom left say ON3P. Dude almost mounted one of my bindings backward. Would have been so bad lol.
I was considering noting which end is the tip/tail and binding mount marks on the left side, even if the tech thinks I'm an ass for doing so. All I think about is in like 2008 or so when everybody's invaders or symmetrical park skis got mounted backwards or like -5cm back for no reason or because the tech thought center mounts were stupid.
iggyskierSo....we put the mount mark on the left sidewalls on ALL skis. Why? Because every jig we've ever seen has its boot sole locator on the left side. To mount on the wrong side would be to mount on a side with NO mount mark at all.
Lol I totally agree man, guess the dude didn't notice that. He's old which is good cause he's been mounting skis forever but also bad because he had never seen a pair of ON3P's. Maybe he did see the mark on the sidewall and that's what prevented him from basing it off the logo lol. Either way, all good now, thanks for all u do
iggyskierSo....we put the mount mark on the left sidewalls on ALL skis. Why? Because every jig we've ever seen has its boot sole locator on the left side. To mount on the wrong side would be to mount on a side with NO mount mark at all.
Lol I totally agree man, guess the dude didn't notice that. He's old which is good cause he's been mounting skis forever but also bad because he had never seen a pair of ON3P's. Maybe he did see the mark on the sidewall and that's what prevented him from basing it off the logo lol. Either way, all good now, thanks for all u do
Skied the past few days with the kartels, hands down greatest fucking ski I've ever had. Even though they're stiff they're still so playful for butters and shit. Damn great job guys.
Jesse_Skied the past few days with the kartels, hands down greatest fucking ski I've ever had. Even though they're stiff they're still so playful for butters and shit. Damn great job guys.
Oh man if you love them now just wait until they break in after 40/50 days...youll never want to ski a different ski again.
