EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Has anyone been on either of these skis?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Has anyone been on either of these skis?

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 

I'm between the Nordica Hell and Back and the Head Rev 98.  I'll be using the ski for side/back country as well soft groomer days, they will be mounted with the salomon guardian.  My skiing style is agressive but playful.  I like to pop off of natural features but dont enjoy spending time in the park.  Edge hold is a little bit of an issue since i'll be using them on groomed runs occasionally but it's not why i'm getting these skis.  I'll be using them mostly in Montana but will probably use them at home on the east coast every now and then. 

 

I'm an in shape 25 year old, about 170 lbs, and around 5'10''.

 

Thanks for all the help.

post #2 of 14
Personally, if most of the time is going to be groomers or East coast, I'd take the 98's. I own the H&B and it's not my choice for groomer days. Some people like them, but to me, it's what else you have in the closet. I've got better stuff on the locker for groomer days.
post #3 of 14
Thread Starter 

As i mentioned in my first post they will be used primarily for side/back country but will occasionally be used on softer groomer days.  My main concerns are with it fitting my skiing style.  The shop i work at has both models to demo so i'll be doing that as well i'm just looking for people's opinions about how it handles so that i have some insight going into the demo process.
 

post #4 of 14
Where in Montana?

Personally, I think every ski takes a bit of learning to get used to and too much info before a demo tends to skew your impression.

I'm asking where because I've skied a bit in Montana, so it'll influence my choice. Not sure that either is really what you want. The H&B would be fine, but there may be something better. The type of side country could play a part. I do know that here, for your demographic, they'd want a wider ski. For myself, I think it is sufficient, but I like going through tight trees at a more sedate pace.

Dawgcatching reviewed them both here: http://www.dawgcatching.com/blog/ski/2014-demo-skis-tested-skis-from-blizzard-nordica-on3p-atomic-fischer-head-kastle
Edited by sibhusky - 7/5/13 at 11:06am
post #5 of 14
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the link.  I'll be skiing Bridger mostly.   I see your point about having info before testing the ski myself but,I tend to really like all skis unless i have certain things to look for.  It usually takes me a couple days to get over the fun of  a new ski before i can really start critiquing it.

 

Thanks.

post #6 of 14

I skied both of these 2014 skis, You really can't go wrong with either one of them.  

A lot depends on what kind of feel you like to get out of a ski.  If you want damp and unflappable, go with the Rev 98.  If you want something a little more energetic then go with the Hell and Back. 

post #7 of 14

I demoed the Nordica Hn'B (177) thought it was amazing. Desperately want that ski. Quick, nimble yet stable, very light with lots of energy. Good everywhere I thought.

post #8 of 14
Thread Starter 

What's your height/weight?  I'm pretty sure a 177 would be a good fit for me but wonder how you thought the sizing felt.

 

Also if anyone could compare either ski with a Rossi S3 that would be awesome.  The S3 is the only other ski in the "mid fat" category that i've been on.

post #9 of 14

The Rev98 is a new ski for next season, while the Rev's 90 and 105 are leaders in their categories, the new 98 felt lacking. Now, the Helen Bach IS one of the best skis in the 98 category and what you are looking for. 

post #10 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by boone View Post

What's your height/weight?  I'm pretty sure a 177 would be a good fit for me but wonder how you thought the sizing felt.

 

Also if anyone could compare either ski with a Rossi S3 that would be awesome.  The S3 is the only other ski in the "mid fat" category that i've been on.

I'm 180cm and 82kgs, the 177 was long enough for me and for your weight should be right for you too but if you are super hard charging and have big wide, open spaces then you might want to go up a size. My partner has the women's S3, fun but a very different kind of ski from the H'n'B. 

post #11 of 14

I only skied the REV 98 in the short 170 length, but it felt solid. Typical Head: damp, smooth, powerful.  The Hell n' Back was more "lively", underdamped for my taste.  I know a lot of people like it, but it isn't for me; not really the feel I am looking for.   The Soul Rider is more of the feel I was looking for, although it could use just a bit more beef. THAT would be a sweet ski!

 

My vote (since you are about my size) is the REV 98.   

post #12 of 14

The H&B was the surprise of the season for me. Have to say I thought they were really really fun and whoop-ass playful without being squirrelly. Awesome short to medium radius turns, laid them way up on edge on fairly hard groomers and they held very well.. .I think the tune was 1 and 3. Bopped off trail into about 6" of dust on funk. No problem, but didn't inspire quite the confidence as a ski with some metal like the Kastle FX 94 or the E-98. The nicest surprise is how fun they were in the bumps. I skied the 185 (6', 205#) and put the H&B way up on the list for a general all purpose get it done ski for inbounds, touring, and even telemark.

post #13 of 14

I own a pair (177) mounted with Marker f-12 and also bought the pre-cut skins... I mainly use them for days when there is big snow drop ( 3-4 times per saison). They are very fun ski: very light and you can go any radius with them...very energetic like some said...I ski them on powder, groomed, trees (can turn on a dime) and bumps (really nice). Don't let the fact that they don't have metal fool you: they don't need the metal! I had to ski them once throught a part of  refrozen snow and they were ok but usually, I use other skis for that.

I also use them for side/back country and really love them! Even with the f-12 ( which are lighter than the guardian but are heavier than real dedicated backcountry bindings), they are really light and easy to skin with.

I'm 6';210 pounds and ski N-E.

post #14 of 14

I am close to your size and ski the H&B in the 177 as my AT ski (dynafits).  I was willing to sacrifice some weight in the ski to gain some better performance and it had the straight tail which I felt was esential and the dimensions were what I was looking for.

 

I liked the ski, but I am not the best judge as I like almost all of my new skis-don't bother to demo often.  At 177 it will have speed limits out west, but you will rarely encounter them in the East.  I thought it was a ski that liked strong driver input and I would say it is midway between playful and damp.  The H&B is an all mountain ski-ok in powder, ok in crude, ok in bumps, ok on groomed, not the best in tight trees, not the best at a slarved turn, very good on steep hard snow, build quality seems good.  It is a ski I would consider for an everyday ski in the East, although it seems to be most recommended for an everyday western ski.  

 

I give it a strong two thumbs up, especially if it is still available on the blem sale.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Has anyone been on either of these skis?