Review: 179 Obsethed

Me: 6', 200 lbs., level 8ish skier, normally ski on 186 watea 94's.
Where: Stevens Pass, WA
Date: 1/2/09
Conditions: About 12" of heavy snow and crud.

This was a few weeks ago, we had a great morning 'cause we headed up for Stevens Pass taking a chance that they'd open the road (closed due to avy's, but was *supposed* to open) before we got there. We lucked out, they did open the road a little before 8am. The morning was *empty*... most people waited to know if the road was open before driving up.

I wanted to demo some skis, and the Obsethed was the only thing that they had this day that interested me. They had some rossi s7's that I really would have liked to try out, but they weren't mounted yet.

Overall, these were very fun skis. It's a little hard to tell how they compare to my watea's since I didn't bring them with me, but they did very nicely in the heavy snow. The slight rocker did help keep the tips up, and they felt very comfortably surfy to me. I do feel like the very slight rocker makes a difference in keeping the skis up and floating. They felt a little more easy going in these conditions that I would have expected from my watea's.

I've heard they're not particularly stiff skis, but I didn't feel like they got knocked around in the crud. They road up over it but felt stable, not floppy, while doing it. Not a crud buster, but stable enough to be fun. In fact, I did feel like I could drive through the heavy crud that day easier on the Obsethed's than I usually do. I relaly wish I'd had my skis there to run them back to back to know for sure. But these felt pretty darned stable to me in some relatively heavy crud.

I did check them out on some soft groomers, too. I'm not very demanding of my skis on groomers, no racing background, and don't charge the mountain. These were fun for me. They don't have much rocker at all, and can still hold an edge on softish groomers and felt pretty easy going and lively to me. Definitely not a ski that punishes you if you want to take it easy.

Overall, I'd ski them again and would seriously consider buying a pair. I had a lot of fun on them. I might have liked them better than my watea's, but it's tough to say since I didn't ski them back to back.

I just skied these at J-hole in similar conditions. It's all subjective but I found them fun on untouched powder and broken. Skiing a line on lower thunderhead bumps to the right, they were a lot of fun and easy to ski in rather irregular and large bumps. Where I found them a huge probelm was skiing the headwall from Amphitheater across (expert chutes?) the snow was heavier (not cement), they had no torsional stability and I coudn't get them to hold a stable line. Stephan (Skiing-in-Jackson) had the same experience. I prefer a stiff board and went back to my Shamans. I would like to demo the JJ, Armada.

I can't say I exactly had that same experience but you're right it's all very subjective and also heavily dependent on skiing ability and styles.  It's possible you were pushing them harder in that situation than I was so I didn't get the same reaction from them.

 

I will however, definitely agree with your last statement; I would love to demo some JJ's, too bad the 185's are pretty much nonexistent.  I'm hoping that the rumors of the 195 version next year are true 'cause that'd probably make the 185 easier to come by.

i too demoed this ski last week.

 

i'm 6ft, 165, level 9 finesse skier who skis at moderate speeds, mixture of turns shapes and i like skis that can blend a variety of skills but don't get too pushy w/ their own agenda...

I also ski a watea 94, 178, for my 90% of the time ski and still love it (although at that length, it's skills as a pure pow ski aren't ideal, hence the hunt I've been on for a pure pow ski.)

 

as to that hunt, skis I've owned to try to add pow versatility to my quiver.

gotama 183 (not any better then watea for me in pow, and not as good everywhere else)

coomba 181(first impression was pretty good, then the ski abadoned me  and started arguing)

Pontoon 189(super easy, but not for me. too many sensations I like missing, replaced by easy, surfy, but not enough of what i love to feel in pow)

prior overlord 183(too stiff for my speeds)

moment ruby, 188 (just too cumbersome, fun but not playful)

 

So,

the obsethed is the tied for my favorite of all the pow skis I've tried w/ the Huge Trouble (i didn't mention it, as aI didn't own it and only got 1 day on it)

 

it was great on the packed snow, predictable in the broken pow, w/ bullet proof rain bumps underneath, and easy in the pow.

the tip comes up, the shape underfoot works, the rocker is minimal and assists w/o dictating technique.

 

the 2 reasons i haven't bought one are; 1 the graphic next year is simpler and cleaner, 2, the tail bugged me a few times in the crud over frozen rain bumps. it felt like i had too much tail, which may have been true since I'm not sure where the demo mt. was. If i find out I was maybe a 1/4 to 1/2 ich forward on my demo, I'll buy the ski in next years graphic. if i find i was on the "traditional" line, more debate... probably call dawgcatching and try to get a Huge Trouble...

 

cheers,

holiday

 

Edited by Holiday - Wed, 04 Feb 09 04:21:33 GMT

jaobrien6 and Holiday - have you given thought to the Solly Czar?  (I haven't tried it, but am curious about how it might compare to the Obsethed and others with this hybrid-rocker thing.)

I have not been on a czar yet, but would be interested in seeing how it compares as it definitely seems to be in the same ballpark.

I would like to try the lord. IT has a smaller rocker but better all round side cut for any condition.

Oh, forgot to add earlier...

 

I really meant to pay attention to where they were mounted, especially since I've seen a lot of debate on TGR about where to mount these puppies.  But I totally forgot to check.  :(

 

If I do end up picking up a pair, hopefully I end up mounting them in a place that I like.  I wouldn't ski switch or in the park at all so I would lean towards a more traditional mount, hopefully that would work well for me.  I might see if I can find out how the skis I demo'd were mounted, in the meantime.

 

I don't think the lord is really on my radar.  It's not really the type of ski I'm looking for, and I don't think it would do better than my watea's in normal use.

I just talked to the Stevens Pass repair center and the guy I spoke with said they mount them at the traditional line, not forward at all.  Could be the difference in feel between some of the experiences since I know this ski has markings from 0 all the way to +7 on it.  A lot of the folks on TGR are mounting it at +3 to +5, but I wouldn't think I'd want to do that since I have no interest in the park or switch.

 

Holiday/Finndog, I'd be interested in knowing where yours were mounted if you have any idea.

I am an X-racer, have skied since I was 1 1/2 (I am now 37)), and generally an excellent skier, but not too daring (ski steeps, but not drops, and show caution in the woods).  I ski between 40 and 100 days a year (skied 20 days in January). I am 184cm and 83-87kg.

 

Skied thied the 189 obesthed this weekend.   The first runs I had with this ski was on a groomer with 4cm of fresh snow, and then on a run below the chair-lift (mogul/powder/wood-skiing)): I hated it. 

 

I then skied it some more on the groomer, but skied it much more agressive.  The rest of saturday I used it for powder and wood skiing with medium steepnes - and ended up liking it quite good. On sunday I liked it, and the mentioned chair-lift run was fun  but very demanding. 

 

It is very hard to get the ski's tail to grab in order to give the ski a pop - i.e. this ski cannot be skied like a race ski in the groomers.  The ski is also quite big: my old ak-rockets feels smaller - maybe because they are lighter? 

 

When I started to use a very aggressive carving technique, the skies responed very well, and I could blast through powder and crud as well as do aggressive gs turns (i.e. fast and turny) in the groomers - and they were surprisingly good on ice. I could also do SL-turns: both aggressively and "ski-instructor" turns.  Still I haven't managed to do "snappy" turns.  Might be that they are longer that what I am used to (have skied 180 for a while), and it might be that they have a softer tail.

 

I am happy I bought these skis.  I think I would have been more pleased with dynastar xxl, but that would not have been as developing in the long run.  I was afraid the ski would be too soft and wobly - it is not.  It can be skied passively: then it will take you on a nice ride...but if you are like me, and like to be in control and take the ski for a ride, it should be skied aggressivly.  I am quite sure a shorter ski would be more playfull.

Despite living in the East this is a ski I am strongly considering buying. I am 5'11" 200 pounds. Current go to ski is the Blizzard Conus in a 180. I ski as much powder and crud as possible often in the trees and very bumpy. It is rare that there is any opportunity to ski very fast except for short bursts.

 

So given all of the above and rocker...hence reduced contact area looking for opinions on whether to go with the 179's or 189's.

Due to the way K2 measures skis, the 179 is really more like a 184 (it's ever so slightly shorter than my 186 watea's), but the rocker and twin will make it ski a little short.  I'm basically the same size as you and I didn't feel like the 179 was too short.  I know a lot of people would probably say I should be on the 189 instead at my size, and I didn't have a chance to demo the 189 to compare, but the 179 did feel good to me.

very interesting, I don't know but they were demos so my guess is that traditional line which is probably about 3-7 back from BC? Anyone know where a demo is mounted on k2's? That could explain a lot.
 

My 16 year old son, who is 6'1" and about 140 pounds, and a pretty good skier, demoed the 179 Obsethed in cut-up powder.  (He was skiing on Rossi B2's that are too short for hime -- 166 -- he grew.)

 

He loved it.  We skied open slopes and and trees at Kirkwood; some slopes were nearly pristine, some were badly chopped up, and some were forming moguls.  THe only thing we did not do was go real fast, since visibility was almost nil.  We only had minimal groomers next to the lifts.  He thought it everything well, and wants to buy one.

As long as we are discussing k2's what about hellbents?

 

I thought that skis come in pairs now a days..

He wants me to buy the other one.
 

evogear and christy's has them for about 40-50% off......

Demoed these at whistler with about 5cm of new. I was also impressed with how they performed. They ski quite differently from the Seth Vicious. More float, quicker turning, better edge grip and much more forgiving. The wife had been looking for some powder skis & I got her to try them as well. She loved them as well & ended up buying a pair of 169's.

 

I checked the demo mount and the ones up here were mounted at the 'K2 Recommended' mark (+3 on the scale). They felt like they skied shorter (probably because of the rocker). Ended up mounting at +2 but probably would even have been fine at 0. I definitely wouldnt want to go more than +3 on this ski if you plan to use it for pow or all mtn.

About to mount my new 08/09 169cm Obsethed's and thought I'd resurrect this thread given that I've found the binding mount point issue a bit confusing/inconclusive (though not any more so than the real confusing TGR thread on the same subject).

This ski seems to have been manufacturered with a variety of binding mount markings (or it could be that the markings are so small that there is some imagination required to read them).  Anyway, while I'm going on memory (or imagination too - they're at the shop ready to be mounted once I tell them the location) mine have a 0 to 7.5cm scale with 0 marked as "Traditional", 3cm as "K2 Suggested" and 7.5cm as "Ski Center".

The K2 rep that I met when buying these recommended that I go with the "Suggested" location (no surprise there), and stated that I should ignore all the banter about mounting much behind this point (especially behind the "Traditional" mark as some seem to have reported).  OTOH the folks at ski shop tell me that the "Suggested" location is only for those riding switch and, I (not a switch/park skier) should use the "Traditional" mark. Trying to split the difference, and given my weight (130lbs.), a dislike of tip-heavy skis, sitting back..., I thought I would go with the 1 or 2cm mark (i.e., 1 or 2 cm behind the "Suggested" location).

Any thoughts (the more I read this and other threads here and at TGR it seems like this is still forward of where many have mounted them, but I can't be sure given that many posts talk about +/-cm's without any mention of whether this is from the "Suggested" vs. "Traditional" markings)?

Thanks!
Edited by ski-ra - 11/11/09 at 8:00pm

Last season I mounted my 179 08/09 obSETHed with a Duke at +2cm forward of traditional. I chose that as my old 179 Made 'n AK were mounted +2cm. I took them out, and they were fine in freshies, but I felt like I was going over the bars in crud. I put them next to my Maidens, and realized I was way more forward. I remounted them at -2 from traditional, and they are great as an every day all mountain ski with exceptional crud/pow performance. They are still mounted a bit ahead of my Maidens, but then they are a bit longer. I am 5'6" 175 lbs full cert instructor/trainer who skis about 170+ days a season, and is a K2 ambassador. If I had the 189  I would mount it around +3. I hope you are quite a bit smaller than me, or the 169 is going to be a really short in crud, even if you mount it back a bit. Hope this helps, but the best answer is probably getting a Schizo so you can play with it.

 I had Obsetheds last year and I too struggled with the mount point.

I ended up putting Jesters on the Traditional line and I was not happy with the ski at all.

I concluded that with rockered, tip rockered or reverse cambered skis the "line" is more critical than traditional cambered skis due to extremely short running length.

 If i were to do it again I would have used the Suggested line. 


@mammoth has a good point regarding the Schizos.  You could dial in your spot, then leave them there.

Edited by ski-ra - 11/12/09 at 9:01pm

Yeah your results seem to be in the majority (i.e., "Traditional" or behind for the 179's or a bit forward on the 189's, with little to report on the 169's).  What would you recommend for the 169's (and yes I am quite a bit smaller @ 130lbs and barely 5'5")?  The Schizo's would be great but I have the 08/09's and would rather get agitated over this issue and flame here than spend the extra money...that's just how I am....

Deleted

Deleted - not sure why I'm getting duplicate posts and why I can't delete them...sorry....

With all the discussions I had with people smarter than me. I mounted mine as follows
174 extremes mounted + 2 traditional
169 obsethed + 2.5  traditional
New On3P 171 Jeronimo will be mounted + 2 traditional..
Have only skiied the extremes, one day but they were good where they were..I have RF plate on those, and can change.
The others will have the regular bindings, and will have to wait till snow

Lee

That seems to put you in the minority unless you intend to ski switch/park.  Given that so many seem to think the "Traditional" or back from there is best (especially on the shorter lengths - see @mammoth's post), it will be interesting to compare notes once the snow flies.  Unless I hear something more otherwise I'll be going with the Traditional mark.