post #1 of 1
Thread Starter 
Ski make: 2003-2004 Karhu Jak BC
Length: 170
Tip width: 120
Waist: 90
Tail: 110
Weight in this length: really light!
Boots used: 2003 Scarpa Denali XT
Bindings used: medium Fritschi Freerides, mounted boot center at 36 3/4" from tip
How many days on the skis: 1
Resort or backcountry: I prefer BC, but the resort the day I skied them
Geographical region: ME/NH (NH the day I skied them)
Tell us about the terrain you ski: i like steeps and trees
Do you know how the skis were tuned (bevel): factory
How long have you been skiing: 20
How many days a year: 25 (i wish it was more!)
Previous ski that you liked: 171 Solly 1080’s
Previous ski you did not like: 173 Volkl Explosiv (too stiff for me)
How big are you: 5’8 165

Comments: When I got these in the mail (thanks backcountry.net) I was worried about them being too flexy, especially after reviews I have read. Do not be fooled, the BC is a flexy ski, but it is relatively stiff where it needs to be. It's tip/tail are flexy, but when I flex the middle of the ski, in comparison with my Salomon 1080s, this ski is much stiffer.

Anyway, wanted to take the ski out into the NH backcountry, but conditions dictated otherwise. So, to a resort we went, with wonderful corn conditions for the mostpart. Thus, I had to work to find variable conditions to see how the Jak BC held up. On corn, of course, this thing is bomber. Blows right threw piles of corn, carves amazingly well, and skid turns extremely well. I really had to search to find some hardpack, ice, and crust. Once found, I have to say I was pleased with the performance of the Jak BC. The ski releases extremely well from turns in crust and cruddy snow, thanks probably to the twin-tip design (note: i will always ski a twin tip ski - much more versatile in variable terrain, trees, and snow conditions). The micro edge seemed to hold fine. Same thing through some small moguls with icy troughs. I knew taking a fat ski through bumps was going to be sluggish, but the feedback from the skis flex was positive.

At high speeds, the Jak BC carves out nice 20 m radius turns. No problems holding an edge (in corn snow), but I was unable to see how it would perform on true NE hardpack. But then again, this is not my resort ski, even though this was where I skied it first. The tips flex a bit at speed, and I felt like the 180 would be better for higher speed skiing with longer radius turns. But with the 170s dimensions (and my size), I can't complain - the 180 might be too big for me, being 7 mm bigger at all points of the ski. Going to have to try that out for next year.

I definitely noticed the lighter weight of the Jak BC as compared with my 1080s. Although I did not get to tour with them, while skiing the light weight of the ski was noticeable. On jump turns they are a joy. On jumps, the swing weight is nice in the air, though i didn't swing as fast as my skis and yardsaled! They flex progressively on landing, and the soft tail helps with landings where my weight was too far back. The semi-twin tip is fine for skiing switch; felt just as comfortable as my 1080s. The soft tails make for great straightlining - just lean back and go! Their lighter weight is a detriment at higher speeds, but you can still rail pretty well with them (again, I'd like to try the regular Jak 180 at high speed).

One thing to note. The 170 Jak BC is about 4-5 cm shorter than my 171 1080s. So it is a small ski, due in most part I guess, to the twin tip; thus it skis very short. I would love to try the 180 for higher speed skiing for sure, and might be tempted to pick up the Jak in a 180 since it is supposed to be stiffer. But for skiing tight eastern trees and tight gullies, and anything where jump turns or short turns are in order, the 170 is a solid performer. For now, extremely happy with my purchase. I will update more when i get the BC in to its true domain, the backcountry.