Sizing up up on the ON3P Jeffrey 100

[colerichardmyers]

Snagged a great deal on a pair of ON3P Jeffrey 100s in 181 length. I am 5' 9", 175 lbs, advanced and overall strong skier than can drive and manipulate most skis. Currently, my daily is the Praxis MVP 108 in 184 length, which is a pretty stout ski for the freeride-y type category. I imagine its probably similar to the Woodsman 108, stiffer and more damp than the Wildcat 108 and Deathwish, etc. I was in between the Jeff 100, WC 101, and DW 104 for a low tide a bit more playful ski (asked you all for input). Ended up finding a great deal on the Jeff 100 in 181 length so figured I'd give it a shot. I will preface that I have skied more center mounted skis (MVP 108 is -6 so its fairly forward mounted..by no means directional and have been on other skis at -5, -4, etc.) so that isn't foreign to me. I ended up with the 181 length after looking on a variety of feeds and chatting with ON3P. After a few days of being on them I am really questioning the 181 length for me.

Overall, They feel incredibly short i.e. more like I am on something sub 175 vs 181. They obviously pivot well, but almost too well. Obviously they are more apt to pivot, slash, are poppy, playful, etc. Yet, I really feel should have gone up to the 186 length and would still have more than enough of the positives of a Jeff, but also gained some more stability and chargy-ness. Anyone have experience sizing up quite a bit on these? Is it just how the Jeffs are? Would I have been better trying the Woodsman 100 if I was going to go ON3P?

Also, maybe just tell me I am too used to my MVP 108s, which may have more of a balance of charge to play. I am most likely selling the 181s either way and going with the size up 186, maybe considering the Woodsman in 181 length, WC 101 or DW 104 in 184 length (not sure if the WC 101 will feel similar in the 184 length due to it being at -5 MP and actually measuring 181ish).

 

[Session]

I have been on the 181's and the 186 Jeffrey in the 100, and 110. I would say it depends on where you ski. For me the 181 was good when I was at a lower angle/slower resort. I felt like I wanted more when I was some place steeper with a lot more room to open them up. I have defaulted to the 186 on everything ON3P at this point. But I also know better skiers than me are pretty happy with the 181. The 186 obvioulsy feels more stable at speed in variable conditions. and I have to ski the 181 less aggresive.

 

[colerichardmyers]

I have been on the 181's and the 186 Jeffrey in the 100, and 110. I would say it depends on where you ski. For me the 181 was good when I was at a lower angle/slower resort. I felt like I wanted more when I was some place steeper with a lot more room to open them up. I have defaulted to the 186 on everything ON3P at this point. But I also know better skiers than me are pretty happy with the 181. The 186 obvioulsy feels more stable at speed in variable conditions. and I have to ski the 181 less aggresive.

Yeah currently Stevens Pass is my home mountain, which has a front side of shorter but steeper segments and a backside that has longer steeper pitches relative to the front. I will say I skied them at Kirkwood, which is a large, steep mountain. I definitely loved them for tight, steep trees. I found myself seeking out tighter and tighter spots within the trees, but dropping off cornices and into the bowls from the top ridgeline it just felt lackluster. I thought I'd prefer the playfulness/ability to pivot/turn of the Jeff at 181 to compliment my MVP 108, but it almost feels I went too far in the direction.

 

[BallClapper]

Yeah currently Stevens Pass is my home mountain, which has a front side of shorter but steeper segments and a backside that has longer steeper pitches relative to the front. I will say I skied them at Kirkwood, which is a large, steep mountain. I definitely loved them for tight, steep trees. I found myself seeking out tighter and tighter spots within the trees, but dropping off cornices and into the bowls from the top ridgeline it just felt lackluster. I thought I'd prefer the playfulness/ability to pivot/turn of the Jeff at 181 to compliment my MVP 108, but it almost feels I went too far in the direction.

YELL. What you doing Friday? Need homies fer a thing please.

 

[BallClapper]

 

[colerichardmyers]

View attachment 1087156

Right. My mistake for not going with the size up to max advise haha. There is only ever one option for length and is the longest option.

 

[mikem]

I like kinda typed this post but ended up deciding I just need to ski them more. Here is some context on the size up:

I bought jeff 108 in 186 and Im like 5'9 140lbs. I also feel they pivot too well, are slashy and weird in turns. I also don't think they are like super chargy or even stable.

I am currently not liking the ski, I want to like the ski, the ski feels weird to ski downhill for my style.

 

[SlushSeason]

Do you normally ride skis that size? I'm a little taller and 40lbs heavier than you and yet i think the jeff 108 in 181 fits me really well.

The turning will always be a little weird. They're made to slarve, not carve, so i really don't recommend them on hardpack. The turns can feel a little hooky, but also the rocker and taper can cause the edges to release earlier than you expect.

As for the charge factor, i think it's overhyped here. Sure, they are way chargier than most park skis, but they really shine at mid speed when you can afford to pop off bumps rather than just soaking everything up at full speed.

Lastly, they are best skied centered. Sure it's fun to carve while leaning way out over the noses, but the ski feels most at home when i stand flat on it and use small slashes for speed/direction.

As cringey as it is to say it, Jeffreys are a swerve ski. Just with a little more meat than you'd usually expect

I like kinda typed this post but ended up deciding I just need to ski them more. Here is some context on the size up:

I bought jeff 108 in 186 and Im like 5'9 140lbs. I also feel they pivot too well, are slashy and weird in turns. I also don't think they are like super chargy or even stable.

I am currently not liking the ski, I want to like the ski, the ski feels weird to ski downhill for my style.

 

[colerichardmyers]

Do you normally ride skis that size? I'm a little taller and 40lbs heavier than you and yet i think the jeff 108 in 181 fits me really well.

The turning will always be a little weird. They're made to slarve, not carve, so i really don't recommend them on hardpack. The turns can feel a little hooky, but also the rocker and taper can cause the edges to release earlier than you expect.

As for the charge factor, i think it's overhyped here. Sure, they are way chargier than most park skis, but they really shine at mid speed when you can afford to pop off bumps rather than just soaking everything up at full speed.

Lastly, they are best skied centered. Sure it's fun to carve while leaning way out over the noses, but the ski feels most at home when i stand flat on it and use small slashes for speed/direction.

As cringey as it is to say it, Jeffreys are a swerve ski. Just with a little more meat than you'd usually expect

Good take here. Totally get they aren't meant to carve nor charge like other skis. I am just thinking size up because of how pivoty, flickable, etc. they are at 181. Going up to 186 would still provide a ton of all that with some added stability. Might be that I need to get used to them.

 

[SlushSeason]

Sizing up for you is probably fine. I think if you're really just looking for stability, swapping to the 108 would be a good move too. Though that kinda defeats the point of getting a low tide ski.

Good take here. Totally get they aren't meant to carve nor charge like other skis. I am just thinking size up because of how pivoty, flickable, etc. they are at 181. Going up to 186 would still provide a ton of all that with some added stability. Might be that I need to get used to them.

 

[hamsauce]

I have 191 jeffs and am pretty tall. ON3P measures differently than the rest of the industry, so they are actually like 5cm longer than my 190 wildcats. That being said, they still feel shorter. Yes theres a ton of rocker, yes they are burly, but you will fight the ski if you try to ski it super aggressively- its a ski meant to be skied with a neutral stance. Definitely takes some getting used to. Even though they feel like they cant carve or charge, you just have to trust the ski to do the work.

 

[colerichardmyers]

Sizing up for you is probably fine. I think if you're really just looking for stability, swapping to the 108 would be a good move too. Though that kinda defeats the point of getting a low tide ski.

I was kind of getting it for a low tide ski, but also just wanted something with a narrower width for a change. I typically ski 106-114 width skis regardless of the conditions or time of year. Wider skis are just so much damn fun. Maybe I would appreciate the 108 more. I actually took it out last night in the absolute worst conditions possible at Stevens Pass (i.e. absolute icy-hard-pack off-piste and intermittent ice on groomers) so not really any takeaways from the day other than I feel like I figured out the ski a bit more on a few non-icy sections. Unfortunately, due to how hard and icy everything was I wasn't able to flick it around and pop off a bunch of shit nor pop in the park, which is why I wanted it in the first place. My MVP 108, obviously a different ski, handled the hard pack and ice a lot better. It has really good edge hold and doesn't get deflected nearly as much as the Jeff 100 did. I experienced a decent amount of deflection at Kirkwood as well on the Jeff 100 in softer snow, but it might be due me trying to ski it too much like my MVP 108. That also makes me interested in the Jeff 108. Could be a bit more on the spectrum towards freeride, but still freestyle. Wonder if anyone gets the Woodsman 100 or 108 and mounts it up at -6? That would be awesome as well.