In the Air & the Park / Jumps & Landings
Alex: I was able to take the Jeffrey through the park a few times, and when I wasn’t in the park, I was playing all around Taos on them. So this section considers the results from both park and all-mountain jibbing / jumping.
My first impression with the Jeffrey was that it had a medium amount of pop. For comparison, I remember my first run on my 181 Rossignol Sickles a couple years ago. Out of the box, those skis felt extremely lively and poppy. Loading up the tail to ollie off of a mogul felt very natural, and it was really easy to ollie over anything. Compared to the Sickle, the Jeffrey feels a bit more dampened.
The Jeffrey 114s feel comfortable in the air. After one run through the park to get the speed right, I felt perfectly comfortable flipping and spinning them.
Their swing weight is not especially light, but this is not a small ski to be taking into the park. I would say that their swing weight feels as expected—i.e., average—for this type of ski. I’m looking forward to jumping them some more, but so far, they have treated me well in the air.
(After skiing switch with these here and there for a couple runs, I do have a recommendation. Mounted on the line, it felt like I had to push the nose around a little bit too much when I was carving switch. I think moving the bindings +1 or +2 from recommended would solve this completely.)
As every jibber knows, even the most mundane ski run can be a blast if there is a cat track interrupting it. Butters, presses, nollies, and taps can make great days out of so-so conditions.
And this was definitely the case with the Jeffreys. I was very impressed by how easy it was to lean into a nose butter with these skis. I could easily put my weight into the soft nose of the ski, then actually hold it for a second, and control the pop out.
Nose butter threes were soooo much fun with these skis. By quick comparison, both my Rossignol Sickles, and K2 Recoils (park skis) feel just a little squirrely when I get my body weight up on the nose of the ski. The Jeffrey 114 felt way more in control.
I want to be clear here, the Jeffrey’s buttering capabilities do not mean that this is a noodly ski by any stretch of the imagination. What I’m saying is that once you press out past the stiffer underfoot section of the ski, you can easily work with and control the flex in a way that I haven’t experienced on other skis.
How solid do they feel when you land? All this mention of the Jeffrey’s soft nose and tail might cause some concern for readers thinking about landing stability.
But I honestly didn’t have a problem with landings. The stiffness underfoot + the width of the ski inspire confidence when putting down the landing gear. However, I expect that if you land way backseat or way forward, the skis probably will wash out on you.
Comparisons:
• 186cm ON3P Jeffrey 114 vs. 186cm Blizzard Gunsmoke
Jonathan: First things first – the Jeffrey 114 looks like a bigger ski than the Gunsmoke, because it is. The 186 Gunsmoke is 183.4cm long, while the Jeffrey 114 is 186.8cm. And the Jeffrey has wider tips & tails.
Will Brown and Jason Hutchins have written really well about the Gunsmoke, and we are going to have to do a dedicated ‘Vs.’ review – Gunsmoke vs. the Jeffrey 114, because this is a very direct comparison (cf. their respective widths, tip & tail splay, and flex patterns).
The thing that impressed me a lot about the 186 Gunsmoke was how good of a carver it is – it is easy to bend, and it holds an edge well. And I recall that the Gunsmoke was still willing to let you drive the shovels when carving, more than the Jeffrey 114.
I don’t have that much time on the 186cm Gunsmoke, but I will say that if you offered me a choice of either the 186 Gunsmoke or the 186 Jeffrey, I’d take the Jeffrey—for hard & fast all-mountain skiing. (I have a strong suspicion that the 193cm Gunsmoke—which has a beefier flex pattern than the 186cm Gunsmoke—would be the better fit for me.)
Anyway, we’ll hopefully get Alex on the Gunsmoke soon, and get Will Brown or Jason Hutchins on the Jeffrey 114 to get their take.
•190cm Moment Blister Pro vs. 186 ON3P Jeffrey 114
When sizing up the 184cm Blister Pro against the 190cm Blister Pro and the 186cm Jeffrey 114, the 190cm Blister Pro / 15-16 Bibby Pro is the more direct comparison, based off of their respective lengths and dimensions. The 184cm Blister Pro is much shorter than the 186 Jeffrey.
Some numbers:
190cm Moment Blister Pro – Actual Length: 188.1cm; Measured Dimensions: 142-118-133; Weight: 2393 & 2372 grams
186cm ON3P Jeffrey 114 – Actual Length: 186.8cm; Measured Dimensions: 141-114-133; Weight: 2211, 2208 grams
Some observations:
A) Once upon a time, ON3P skis all seemed to reside on the heavy end of the spectrum. But for the 2015-2016 season, ON3P is using a new bamboo material that is, according to them, “10%” lighter.
All I know is that the Jeffrey 114 is lighter than the Gunsmoke, and much lighter than the 190cm Blister Pro.
B) While many of us at Blister have sung the praises of the Bibby Pro / Blister Pro for years, and given it the title of “playful charger,” it is probably fair to say that the ski skews a little more toward the ‘charger’ side of things than the ‘playful’ side—especially if by “playful” you mean “good at tricking.”
The 186cm Jeffrey 114 is definitely more playful in this sense than the 15/16 Bibby (14/15 Blister Pro). The 190 Bibby is more stable, is much more tolerant of a drive-the-shovels style, and has stiffer, more supportive (and in that sense) more forgiving tails.
But nobody we know is taking the 190cm Bibby into the park, while Alex has already vouched for the Jeffrey 114’s performance in the park. The more you’re looking to nose butter or tail press, the more it seems that the Jeffrey 114 is the better tool for the job.
So if the Bibby is a playful charger, the Jeffrey with its softer tips & tails and more forward mount point, is a ski that strikes a more even balance of ‘trick or charge’.
Who’s It For?
If you like the sound of the 190 Bibby and its reported stability, but are concerned that it may be a bit more ski than you want as you’re tricking around the mountain, then the ON3P Jeffrey 114 seems pretty ideal.
Bottom Line
Alex: So far, I love this ski. The soft-ish tails take a couple of runs to get used to, and I personally would prefer the mount +1 or +2 from recommended. That being said, this ski is a superb all-mountain performer with a playful attitude. So if you like to play around the mountain but want to have the option to occasionally charge some lines, I give the 186 Jeffrey 114 a strong recommendation.
Jonathan: The 186cm Jeffrey 114 is a really fun ski, whether you’re tricking it or not. And given that the closest comparison I can think of is to one of my favorite skis of all time, I suppose that counts as very high praise.
NEXT: Rocker Profile Pics
Hi! Great review! How did you like the mounting point? Did you try it more forward?
Thanks, Eric – we talk about the mount point throughout the review, but in short: I really liked the recommended line, and don’t have much interest in getting more forward. -4.6cm of center is more forward than where I have my 190 Bibbys mounted, and is much further forward than the ‘directional chargers’ I spend a lot of time riding.
Alex, however, would go at least +1 and maybe +2 of the line, and suggests doing so if you’re going to be skiing switch or spinning much.
Hey Guys,
Great review. Could either of you comment on the differences between this ski and the Mr. Pollards Opus? Would it be a fair to say the Jeffery might be the middle ground between the Opus and the Blister/Bibby Pro?
Thanks
I haven’t skied the Opus, but according to Jason Hutchins (see his review), the 185 Opus is a very soft ski. So between the Opus and the Bibby, I am confident that the Jeffrey would sit closer to the Bibby than the Opus. There is no ‘charger’ in the Opus – it’s pure play. That isn’t to say that some people can’t ski the Opus very hard, but if you can rally the Opus through variable snow, that says more about your balance and skiing ability than what the Opus was optimized to do – trick and spin.
As ON3P says, the Jeffrey has a backbone. So for pure play, I imagine the Opus wins. But as we say, if you’re looking for a ski that will allow you to trick AND go ski hard all around the mountain – and in variable snow – so far, the Jeffrey hits that mix incredibly well.
Sounds like the Jeffrey sits closer to the Deathwish than the Blister Pro.
How do the Jeffrey and the Deathwish compare?
Thanks.
Still looking for the 108 under foot PB&J, Blister Pro…
As the Bibby Pro is back can´t you talk Moment into building this Ski as the new Blister Pro?
Do You think the Kartel 106 would do the trick?
Maybe, Hias – but the problem is that I’ve yet to ski the 190 Deathwish, only the 184. (And yes, this is stupid – there were about 15 days this past season that were going to be the day I finally took out the 190s. But we have a lot of skis we’re trying to get on…)
Having said that, the 184 Deathwish and the 186 Jeffrey are definitely not more similar than the Jeffrey and the 190 Bibby – read Will Brown’s comments in his review of the 190 Deathwish re: the 184 vs. the 190.
So what I can safely say is that if you’re considering the Jeffrey or the Deathwish, you ought to be considering the 186 Jeffrey and the 190 Deathwish.
And still, the fatter tips and tails of the Jeffrey are closer to those of the Bibby than the Deathwish – the Jeffrey & Bibby feel more like pow skis that work really well as all-mountain skis, while the Deathwish feels like an all-mountain ski that doesn’t particularly shine in pow.
As for a PBJ-meets-Bibby at 108mm underfoot, it seems to me that Moment is already basically building that ski, but it’s a couple millimeters wider, and it’s called the Deathwish.
As for the Kartel 106, that might be the ski you’re looking for, but we’ve still yet to ski it, evidently because God (or Scott Andrus?) hates Will Brown. Dunno. Maybe someday…
Hi Jonathan
It’s been a while since I’ve seen a review by Jason Hutchins, which is a shame because I generally like his takes as a less directional, more jibby skier, and I would have been interested to know what he thinks about a number of new skis from this year (new Bent Chetler, Magnum Opus, a couple of Faction skis he had written he’d test). Is he still writing for Blister? Any chance he’ll post about the skis he’s skied this winter?
Hi, Henri – Jason’s still writing for us, but unfortunately, his graduate school work has really been getting in the way this season. So we’ve lightened his review load a bit out of necessity. (Stupid higher education.) Plus, as Jason kept apologizing for / complaining about, it was a pretty bad snow year in the Wasatch, and if your schedule didn’t permit you to catch just the right days, you were pretty out of luck. So Jason has had the Magnum Opus, but I’m not sure how much time he’s been able to put on it. (Come to think of it, I owe Jason a phone call…) But I promise, this isn’t the last you’ll have heard from Jason.
But in other eerie / funny news, Alex Adams (who did this co-review with me) is basically Jason’s doppleganger. It’s unbelievable, and it probably warrants it’s own article on Blister. But Alex’s favorite ski of all time is the Sickle, and he LOVES the OG K2 Hellbent — same as Jason. Watching them ski (or ride bikes), the consensus comment is that it’s the closest thing to watching Jason ski or ride that we’ve seen. All that to say, it sounds like you should pay close attention to Alex’s comments on this stuff, too.
Great review again and really helpful comparison to the Gunsmoke which I thought was a great ski and one a great many peeps can relate to … Two quick ones. I know you may have ended up with the wrong flex / tune on the Praxis MVP but have you got any summary thoughts on how these two compare? Fall line charging vs. jibbiness … Trying to size myself in the Jeffrey and interested what size you think these ski vs. a 184 Blister/Bibby Pro or 185 Helldorado. Review reads like I may be able to go either 181 or 186cm but curious whether you think they ski short given rocker profile or pretty bang on? I’m 5’9 / 180lbs
Thanks, Tom. As for MVP / Jeffrey comparisons … not really. After the quick adjustments that both Alex and I made on the Jeffrey, that ski just felt intuitive everywhere. And “intuitive” was never a word that came to mind for me when skiing our particular iteration of the MVP.
But as for sizing, I don’t have any reluctance in recommending the 186 at your weight, though I don’t know how/where you ski. But the 186 Jeffrey is not a handful. I actually toured yesterday on the 184cm Blister Pro (I don’t think I’ve skied a 184cm Bibby since 2011), and while I still think the 190 Bibby is probably the better comparison to the 186 Jeffrey, I don’t believe that anybody that is comfortably skiing the 184 Bibby or the 185 Helldorado will feel out of place on the 186 Jeffrey, or ought to move down to the 181 Jeffrey. The Jeffrey has a lot of tip & tail rocker – i.e., short effective edge – and it isn’t a heavy ski in the category.
That’s really helpful follow-up Jonathan – thanks. Think I will settle on the 186 Jeffrey
Would Alex do second take on the 181 Sickle even though the ski is out of production? Lots of viewers were confused about the 181 vs 186 Sickle. Good to hear Jason is still in the fold. Will Utah have better snow when he graduates?
Great review as always. These are topping my list for next season along with the J ski friend, 4frnt YLE, and gunsmoke. Any chance you’re going to get some runs on the J’s or the YLE’s this year? Would love to see comparisons or those too.
Jonathan,
My season ended in April with a horrific fall that was an angels breath from fatal but now that I can feel again I keep checking my mail for the tickets I’m sure you sent me to hook up in Portillo with a quiver of ON3P’s finest. I’ve got to get back on the horse at some point and Roca Jack looks like it’s hitting. I’m sending you a stamp in case you spent all your money on my tickets so I’ll check the mail again soon and see you there.
Big K
Hi Blister,
Really enjoyed the review! I was wondering if you were going to get a chance to ski the Jeffrey 122 in the same length or if you already have experience on it? I really like the sound of how the Jeffrey 114 performs and ON3P Skis in general but am looking for a more pow oriented ski to fill my quiver. Would you be able to provide any performance comparisons of the two Jeffrey skis? Any help would be great!
Cheers,
Jamie
Good reviews here you guys. I just recently moved to So Oregon from the Tahoe scene and am finding the skis I have are just too big for Mt Ashland (for example: Praxis BPS, LibTech Pow). I’m to the bottom in seconds. These Jeffrey 114 seem like the ticket though to being able to enjoy the mountain a little more. I love the “jibby all over the place” attitude these things seem to be wanting to give out… Just curious what is the height/weight of the reviewer? I am a fit 6’4″ 200lbr and am making the debate between the 186 and the 191. It seems like this area doesn’t really get many huge dumps and when it does it’s thick enough to cruise around on and not “in” if you get my meaning. Also, PNW style, it is pushed into piles / bumps pretty quick…
Any thoughts on the 191 vs 186 for the smaller mountain (1000 vert) and my size combined? Would the 191 loose any of the 186 playfulness? Will it be more loose due to that softer tip and tail further out there?
I generally ski fast (fwd/swch), hit cliffs, steeps, booters, natural features and play around on the hill like it’s my kids favorite play structure. Will I be diving over the front of the 186? I dig a center mount ski and want something to be like the Spatula was (center skied), but without the full on waterski effect (i’ve got some Praxis Pow boards for that…).
Anyhow… shooting the breeze now. Thanks for any thoughts.
I think i just noticed the 122 is available in a 191 not the 114… i guess that settles it… LOL
The ON3P Jeffrey has me in intrigued. Was about to pull the trigger on Line SFB. I’m a big Nordica Soul Rider fan and wanted something wider with the same charactericstics. Any thoughts? I’m 5’10” about 155lbs, lightweight.
Zachary