2nd Look: ON3P Jeronimo, 181cm

Review of the ON3P Jeronimo, Blister Gear Review
11/12 ON3P Jeronimo

Ski: ON3P Jeronimo, 181cm

Dimensions (mm): 126-96-120

Turn Radius: 21.4 meters

Actual Tip to Tail Length (straight tape pull): 181.5cm

Boots/Bindings: Salomon Falcon Pro CS / Marker Jester, DIN at 9

Mount Location: manufacturer’s mark, -3cm from true center

Days skied: 4

[Editor’s Note: Our review was conducted on the 10/11 Jeronimo, which was not changed for 11/12, except for the graphics.]

Having read Mark Connell’s initial review of the Jeronimo, I was eager to take them for a spin. I’d used the K2 Kung Fujas as my everyday ski last season, but found myself growing increasingly tired of their very soft flex. With dimensions and a camber profile nearly identical to the Kung Fujas, the Jeronimos are different primarily in their much burlier flex. Given this, and as I was looking down at them on the lift (and loving the top-sheet graphics for reasons I can’t fully explain), I had some pretty high expectations for how the skis would perform.

Will Brown, collecting data. (photograph by Amon Barker)

Conditions in Summit County on Monday, March 21st were in full spring-mode. A day at Breckenridge brought everything from firm groomers in the morning to big, super slushy bumps and a park laps in the afternoon.

After a couple of runs carving under the Super 8 chair, I was satisfied with the Jeronimos. For their dimensions and width, purely carved turns are easy to engage, and edge hold during short radius turns is solid. However, with longer arching turns at much higher speeds, the Jeronimo’s edge stability is noticeably lessened, but not terribly so. I can attest to Mark’s experience of a “wobbling” feeling in the downhill ski at speed: consistent and firm edge pressure becomes more difficult to impart on the ski as speed increases.

The Jeronimos are happy carving stable turns with a radius dictated by their sidecut, but over-drive the ski – force it into a more aggressively edged turn – and you’ll find yourself losing stability quickly. In my experience, this is a common characteristic of center and near center mounted park skis: they demand a more neutral stance. With less length and effective edge in front of you, it is easy to over pressure the cuff of the boot, causing the tails of the skis to wash out.

The rocker on these skis is somewhat abrupt, with what seems like a relatively short running-length. As a result, I found it easy to feel the length of the skis effective edge and the camber underfoot that supports it. In the same vein, I was happy to find that, due to their stiffness, the rockered portion of the Jeronimo’s tips and tails stayed quiet and relatively chatter-free at speed on hardpack. (I can’t say the same for my K2’s.)

Let’s say it one more time: these skis are pretty stiff, and you’ll want to stay away from bumped up hardpack. Vibrations and hard impacts are easily felt, and dampening the ride is left up to you. I got worked trying to aggressively shut down speed in a few cruddy runouts.

As for their performance in the park, the Jeronimo is far from forgiving. Don’t expect to save a 540 by buttering out the last bit of rotation. In fact, the word “buttery” doesn’t belong anywhere near the skis’ description. I found my shins punished by the stiff tails after landing backseat on a backflip. The Jeronimo’s stiffness and mounting point make full-on park skiing more difficult than it has to be. I’m no wizard, but unless you’re competing in the Winter X games, look for something else if you want an all-mountain ski that will spend most of its time hitting tables.

Will shows off the Jeronimo’s top sheets. (photograph by Amon Barker.)

The Jeronimo is full of tradeoffs. I definitely agree with Mark that the Jeronimo’s performance improves drastically in just the slightest amount of soft snow. They were happier driving through prominent windslab and sun-crust (Wednesday on Loveland Pass) than any other park-oriented ski I’ve ever been on. While far from ideal for hard, less-than-stomped landings in the park, the Jeronimos were a blast for hitting a backcountry kicker, simply because of the softer conditions. They’ll easily handle a choppy in-run then punch though a bombed-out powder landing where a softer park ski might get bucked around.

In just a bit soft snow, the Jeronimo already makes for a good everyday charger, and with a few tweaks, it could be a better than decent park ski.

Bottom line: the 2010/2011 ON3P Jeronimo is for strong skiers who (1) prefer the playfulness of an all-mountain twin tip (2) are not willing to sacrifice fast charging performance for buttery park-steeze, but (3) like to get their jib on when conditions are soft.

10 comments on “2nd Look: ON3P Jeronimo, 181cm”

  1. Nice review, Will. Have you skied the Moment PB&Js at all? I would love to hear the comparison between these two. They sound pretty similar, both pretty stiff, and burly.

    • Hi Sigurd,

      Thanks for reading. I have put a few days on the PB&J, along with Jonathan Ellsworth and Andrew Gregovich (you can read their thoughts here: http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2011-2012-moment-pbj-188cm-2) I’ll be posting my own soon.
      You’re correct, the Jeronimo is quite similar to the PB&J – the 2012/2013 model of the J-mo more so than the 10/11 reviewed here. The 2012/13 model is ~ 100mm underfoot, like the PB&J. We hope to be getting on the new Jmo this spring. As for this year’s (2011/2012) Jeronimo, it’s built with a rounder, more even flex pattern than the model reviewed, which is a great improvement on this ski. From my memory, the Jeronimo feels lighter on your feet and is more agile than the PB&J, though both skis are rather stiff and are not terribly forgiving in the park. If you’re looking for a burly all-mountain ski that can handle some park time and jibbing (but isn’t primarily built for it) to go with a pair of dedicated pow boards when things are fresh, I think the 2011/2012 Jeronimo will serve you well. But if you’re looking for a one ski quiver that will handle chop well, hold decently in powder, is fun on groomers, and will spend 25% or less time in the park, I would tend to recommend the PB&J. It depends on what you’re looking for and if you have other skis in your quiver. Stay tuned for a review of the 2012/2013 Jeronimo. With its new, wider width, it looks to be a more direct comparison to the PB&J

      WB

  2. Can you compare these at all the the Nordica Soul Rider or new Rossignol Slat? Looking for a playful, all-mountain ski that’s as much at home ripping up some front-side leftovers as it is taking a few park laps. Thanks!!

    • Hey Jeff,

      That definitely looks like a very relevant comparison, but unfortunately I haven’t spent any time on the Slat. I’ll be sure to let you know if and when I do. But for what you’ve describing, the Soul Rider could be a great fit.

      WB

  3. Im looking for something along the lines of the jmo or PBJ,but slightly more park oriented. I ski park all year long in the Midwest, then spend around 7-10 days in park city or aspen. Sp really what im looking for is a fatter (93+ waisted) rockered park ski that handles well all mtn.
    Any suggestions?

    • Hey Jack,

      By “slightly more park oriented”, I’m guessing you’re thinking, slightly softer? For that I would highly suggest taking a look at the Nordica Soul Rider. It’s a blast, and is a little softer in the tips and tails, which might make landings a little smoother. Check that review out.

      Will B

    • Hi Lachie,

      Noted. Are you more interested in the Jeffrey 114 or 122? For a start, I think we’d like to check out the 114 first as a wide West coast one-ski-quiver.

      Will

Leave a Comment