What's up, I need help deciding between 3 pairs of skis. For reference, I ski almost entirely in Colorado backcountry and resort with a week or two worth of days year year in Utah and Wyoming. I'm looking to add a freeride/ powder/ big mountain ski to my quiver and am deciding between the moment deathwish 112, ON3P woodsman 108, and Rossignol Sender 110. Although the ski is going to be for mainly freeride style terrain, I still want it to perform in trees and tighter spaces. I dont care too much about groomer performance since that's not really what I do and I have other skis for that. Preferably I'd like to support a smaller brand like moment or ON3P but I feel like the rossignol may be the best for what I'm looking for. Any one have any thoughts or comparisons between the 3? I'm also super indecisive so don't recommend other skis unless you think they're really good.
Moment vs. ON3P vs. Rossignol
- Thread starter Bluna
- Start date
BallClapper
Active member
topic:Bluna said:
[tag=288934]@PartyBullshiit[/tag] can help with moment questions. [tag=178670]@Schoess[/tag] can do 3p. I'll write a rossie schpeil when I have the time.
Non_State_Actor
Active member
Go wider.
PartyBullshiit
Active member
I have the deathwish 112 and 104. The 112 floats great for what it is. It’s a really variable condition ski in that you won’t find yourself wishing for something else when the conditions change week to week. It performs really well overall until things get really really firm or super iced over, but it’s still better than most because of the triple camber
That’s where the 104 shines compared to the 112. I also prefer my 104 in the trees and tight spaces over the 112. It’s plenty pivoty and super maneuverable just isn’t as fast as the 104 with change of directions or edge to edge. the added width also makes it feel a little more cumbersome compared to the 104.
While it will ski most everything it does prefer a slightly softer snow. Plows through crud and chop fairly well but does have a softer core than the 104 so it’s slightly less chargy.
It really comes down to what your main priorities are. If you want a ski you can use in powder or deeper days as well as med tide days yet still be usable on low tide days the 112 is the weapon of choice.
If you really love trees and tight spaces, want something that will Rip when things get firm or iced over and don’t mind giving up a little float I’d recommend the 104 over the 112.
Between the two I prefer the 104 overall but if I needed a 1 ski quiver and knew it would be my only ski I’d choose the 112 just for the added versatility on deeper days.
The 104 has really good float for what it is but it’s only good for about up to 8” of fresh at most before it starts to struggle.
so deep snow priority 112
lower tide priority 104.
That’s where the 104 shines compared to the 112. I also prefer my 104 in the trees and tight spaces over the 112. It’s plenty pivoty and super maneuverable just isn’t as fast as the 104 with change of directions or edge to edge. the added width also makes it feel a little more cumbersome compared to the 104.
While it will ski most everything it does prefer a slightly softer snow. Plows through crud and chop fairly well but does have a softer core than the 104 so it’s slightly less chargy.
It really comes down to what your main priorities are. If you want a ski you can use in powder or deeper days as well as med tide days yet still be usable on low tide days the 112 is the weapon of choice.
If you really love trees and tight spaces, want something that will Rip when things get firm or iced over and don’t mind giving up a little float I’d recommend the 104 over the 112.
Between the two I prefer the 104 overall but if I needed a 1 ski quiver and knew it would be my only ski I’d choose the 112 just for the added versatility on deeper days.
The 104 has really good float for what it is but it’s only good for about up to 8” of fresh at most before it starts to struggle.
so deep snow priority 112
lower tide priority 104.
BallClapper
Active member
Half a pound in the 191 vs 190 wildcat 108. for the pair. Heavier ski will be more stable in chunk and chunder. Most people don't need a super light midfat ski. Not saying either of this is light.
14628094:NSCrip69 said:
Schoess
Active member
I have Jeff 110's and 108's. They're incredible skis, and the most durable out of the 3 for sure. Maneuverability is more a matter of technique than the ski when it comes to the 3 you're looking at. I would recommend the Jeff over the Woodsman if you ever want to ski switch. The woodsman will be a bit stiffer. They have extremely similar radius's so both will turn about the same
Non_State_Actor
Active member
14628167:Schoess said:
Woodsman 108 is not a pow ski at all. If you value powder performance wider is going to be more fun. Deathwish does fine in pow but not even close to the amount of smeary good times as something with more rocker and width.
jumpman101
Member
I have the Jeff 108 and can say it does amazing for a tree all mountain ski. I know they are pricey but I have had 4 seasons now on my Jeff 108 and couldn’t be any happier.
PartyBullshiit
Active member
14628186:Non_State_Actor said:
Agree with the DW as a powder only ski but OP isn’t looking for a powder dedicated only ski. Love my 126 ghost trains and have used them in the trees but absolutely wouldn’t want it as my only ski and absolutely do not prefer it in the trees or tight spaces. Theres a point where width becomes a burden.
PartyBullshiit
Active member
14628222:Bluna said:
You can get the newest deathwish blems onsale atm too.
https://www.momentskis.com/collections/on-sale/products/deathwish-graphic-blem
officechair
Member
Fatypus M5 188cm athlete stiffness
**This post was edited on Sep 21st 2024 at 6:09:04pm
**This post was edited on Sep 21st 2024 at 6:09:04pm
Schoess
Active member
14628186:Non_State_Actor said:
My brother in Christ, the statement that the Woodsman 108 is not a pow ski at all is objectively false. As you can see here, it was designed to float in soft snow. Any ski that's 108 waist is designed for powder. There are almost no upsides to making a ski wider other than to perform in deep/soft snow. I'm confused as to what you think this ski is for brother.
Non_State_Actor
Active member
14628259:Schoess said:
Are you on the east coast or what? Colorado gets blower pow sometimes, 108 is an all mountain width there. The woodsman had a relatively long effective edge, not that much rocker in the tail, it's not a pow specific shape. You should settle down though there's really no need to get so worked up about this shit, OP doesn't even want a pow ski, they clarified in a later post they want a mid-fat all-mountain ski that will be suitable for bigger exposed lines as well as trees and some fresh snow; Woodsman 108 is probably a great choice to cover those bases.
PartyBullshiit
Active member
14628299:Bluna said:
They’ll bust through crud well. I’m still going to recommend the deathwish as it’s the most versatile one ski quiver out of the bunch. It’s going to have the widest use range conditions wise.
stonedbrian
Member
Woodsman 108 might be my favorite ski that I've ever skied. if you carve edge to edge it stays super stable and it prefers the longer turns, and because its stiff it can go really really fast. even in deep powder it was such a fun ride. its pretty traditional and has a -8cm~ from TC mount point, which compared to the rossignol 110 at least would be farther back. I heard a bunch of stories about the sender 110 having bad build quality and delamination happens a lot, which in my experience hasn't ever occurred with on3p or moments.
PartyBullshiit
Active member
Sorry meant to say they’ll all bust through crud well.