ON3P Dreams, my stoke is over 9000

skithesprings

skithesprings

Active member
578526_3619053151224_1120759315_33425641_450233781_n.jpg
HOLY SHIT DO WANT

I've been waiting years for someone to try this kind of shape, flat under foot, convex base on the rocker, no edge on the tips. I can't wait for something like this to go into production. Anyone got the word on when I can buy a pair of these beauties? Keeping my fingers crossed for something around 120 under foot, symmetrical, three stage rocker, kinda like the surface labs but 190+cm and without the convex under the boot.

Waxing must be a bitch, haha.
 
Just FYI, that is prototype for the 12/13 Pillow Fight, not a new model. The bases on them say Sweet Dreams.

p_AlPYiDvD.jpg


153/135/142.

The 12/13 PF which will feature this technology (we still need to name it). More details about it once we have skied it a bit more (8" of pow today) and finalized the design. Only the Pillowfight will feature this for 12/13, but we do expect to start testing it out on other models in the fall.
 
2010 hellbents were rocker/flat/rocker best version imo.

Now if someone would just make a ski like that but symmetrical.

Oh yeah surface new lives.
 
can some one make me a straight ski about 110mm with tip rocker and a little shape under foot for carving
 
The RMU Wisco

https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/674805/

Think will might have one or two left. (Says flat under foot is camber)

 
holy shit, so much want, do bad I live in saskatchewan and don't get pow days

useless fact, today was my 2nd ever pow day and it was the best day skiing of my life
 
symmetrical means more tail, more tail means lots of added drag, drag means slower speeds and less fluid turns

as KM said, unless you are riding switch at least 50% of the time or only hitting booters then they are pointless and will only hinder the ski's performance for actual skiing

there is a reason so few companies make 100% symmetrical pow skis
 
thank you, at least there are two other people who find this as dumb as I do.

I do not know what to think of this prototype as I like having an edge all the way, although on a ski like this It would probably only come out on super deep days.
 
why have edge on a part of the ski that will never touch hard snow?

and with regard to the symmetrical ski argument, no, I don't spend half my time in pow switch, probably no more than 10% really, but I'm more than willing to sacrifice that tiny bit of drag and harder release of the tails for drastically better handling when switch. Imagine riding a ski regular that had narrow tips and a fat tail. It would suck wouldn't it? so why subject yourself to that suckyness when you ride switch? It's no fun riding pow switch if you have to lay over your tips to get your tails up.

yes, it is only preference, and I do prefer symmetrical pow skis, and trust me, I have ridden all of the big companies pow skis.

On a separate note, something i care about more than symmetry is the use of a race base in pow skis. EVERY FUCKING POW SKI SHOULD HAVE RACE BASES. I fucking can't stand anything that is so wide with a slow base that won't hold wax.

end rant.
 
I understand your argument but i ski pow skis in the park.

Therefore symmetrical is awesome.

Also midwest backcountry is mostly little jibs and jumps because most hills are>200 vert so i spend more time skiing backwards in pow than most would.
 
on what? ice?

anything softer than groomed snow is fine without edges, even under foot, and if you weren't picking up on it, these aren't GS skis and are certainly not designed to be laid out into a super huge turn on anything but soft snow.

I never understood why people say stuff about pow skis being scary or unmanageable on firm snow though. Every pow ski I have ever been on I could still rail turns on groomers. And I've been on a lot of pow skis....
 
Yeah we didn't get that you mentioned you have been on a lot of pow ski in your first post thanks for telling us again! I have never skied on a ski with no edge in the tips and tails before so sorry if I expressed y concerns with the design. I am sure you have though since you skied so many pow skis.
 
you clearly have never skied pillow fights, you won't be laying out super huge gs turns on hard pack with them
 
Not to be rude, but I don't really get what you are saying here. On3p Caylor, which only has a difference of 8mm (not even 1 cm) in the tip and tail, is amazing according to you. But is that 8mm really going to make a a ski go from skiing amazingly to skiing like shit?
 
well, personally I don't like jibby pow skis (caylor included, to much tail rocker for my tastes)

but the difference between a center mount and -3 in pow is really noticeable in practice, you can cut down on drag with early taper, but very few symmetrical pow skis I can think of do it well (if any). It all comes down to having to much tail, which you can not avoid when center mounting a ski
 
any ski can work on hardpack if you have any decent skiing skills.

that was my point, but if there is no edge past under foot, you might be loosing that ability.

I am sure skithesprings has skied a pow ski with no edge in the tip and tail so he should enlighten us as to how it works.
 
On3p likes to play around with ski designs a lot, so much of the awesome stuff they make is prototypes, not saying this is, but i really dont think that they will be putting this into production.
 
The above ski is going into production.

We definitely have a few models that are not things we are looking to take into production (The Oar and Bernoulli's Folly) but everything else we've been doing is R&D related to production skis.

As nice as it would be to have an endless budget to build all kinds of crazy stuff, prototyping isn't cheap so the vast majority of our R&D is related to production skis. And even when the skis themselves as not going to production, such as The Oar, it doesn't mean some of the manufacturing processes and design tech aren't. The Oar was our warm up for bringing convexity to the pillowfights. Different skis, but both testing the same manufacturing process which will then be going to production.
 
make an on3p version of the line lizzy so a super super soft 110 waist prob symmetrical park ski.......do a limited production like the pillow fight with super hot girls but call them wet tees.......then have the girls with super wet tees with super perky nips..........prease
 
On prototypes we will often run the edges shorter than we normally do to save $ and time. Production versions will have edging running the same length as our production skis.
 
nah. theres still a split even if they're fully wrapped around, why would it make a difference?
 
Do you have any idea how many skis don't have a full edge around the tips and tails? Tons, including many 4frnts and Moments. Besides, you're not supposed to drop your skis, that's just irresponsible. Actually though when you bash a ski edge tip or tail it can punch into the core, and water can seep in, fucking the skis, thus why it is better for the edge of the bases/topsheet to take the hit.
 
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, edges only matter on ice. Why you would take pow skis out on an icy day is beyond me. Like really, do you plan on buying pow specific skis to bash gates or something? Why are you so concerned with railing turns?
 
not ever day is endless deep powder. even when it is it is still choppy back to the lift, and there is always hard pack underneath and it is nice to have a ski that can handle that.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top