New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Snoop vs. Sugar Daddy

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
I have previously posted on the Snoop Daddy becoming my new AT ski. I'm still inclined that way but just learned that the while the Snoop Daddy (174 length, 20m radius) weighs in at swelt 1630 g the Sugar Daddy (173 length, 28m radius) only weighs 1690 g.

I'd be interested in hearing what people think in terms of choosing between these for an AT ski. This will also be my "powder" ski although I have no hesitation to ski my other ski (Metron B5) in most conditions. They are, however, a drag to hike with so that I expect that I will use my AT ski inbounds a reasonable amount if there is soft snow.

I would probably prefer the 20m radius of the Snoop but would also enjoy the greater differential between the B5's 75 mm waist and the Sugar Daddy's 99 mm waist.
post #2 of 21
sugar, if you are really that worried about weight go for goode.
post #3 of 21
Where did you get the figures on the relative weights of the skis. They sound very suspect to me. I can get my hands on some snoops but not sure if I can locate a sugar to check.

I would go with the snoop all the way myself.
post #4 of 21
Thread Starter 
Weights are from the Atomic Data Sheet which can be downloaded from:

http://www.atomicsnow.jp/
post #5 of 21
Si, How about adding to your b5's by getting the M:EX at 84mm underfoot & then get the Sugar Daddy's at 99mm for the full set? .

That's what I've just done as the now discontinued M:EX's are being sold off dirt cheap & I then found a pair of 'old graphics' SD's also very cheap. Total cost for the two pairs being no more than new cost for the current SD's. Shouldn't be any conditions I can't handle now :.
post #6 of 21
Thread Starter 
spyderjon,

Sounds like a great idea but I travel to ski and 2 skis is all I can take.

L7, I am focused on Atomic and Head because I can get pro-form on them and thus a reasonable price. I also wouldn't mind the Mojo 90 but given the weight difference the Snoop or Sugar Daddy are preferable for my uses.
post #7 of 21
I just purchased a pair of 173 Sugar daddies, and dont be fooled by it 28 meter sidecut. This ski is very nimble, and great on hardpack(even yikes ice). But am still looking to purchase snoop daddies next year cause I have a disease know as Phil syndrom, and cant stop buying skis.

It is the best all around ski for the Snowbird I have used so far even compared to my metrons(probably too short now at 162).

If you in ever in the snowbird area I would gladly let another bear use these over looked skis.
post #8 of 21
Si, I can't speak to the Snoops as I've yet to ski them, but my ski this year was the Sugar (183), and it was a wonderful year. BushwackerinPA has expounded on its versatility in non-powder/chop conditions. I support his observations. I will add that for me this was a surprisingly quick ski in off-piste conditions. Even at 183 cm I found myself skiing tight trees with no hesitation (well, except for that time in Hell's Canyon at Snowbasin, but I prefer to call it a "pause to collect my thoughts"). In chop and crud, its stiffness allows for smooth arcs. In really light, deep, and steep powder, its floatation is wonderful, but that same stiffness makes for the occasional pivot turn rather than a more "sink and carve" type turn that a softer and more shapely ski will give. I skied two days at Copper over spring break and hit everything from early morning hard-packed to spring corn to four inches of new, wet snow, and the Sugars performed with aplomb. I would think that as an AT setup, they'd be perfect for Honeycomb Canyon.
post #9 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si
Weights are from the Atomic Data Sheet which can be downloaded from:

http://www.atomicsnow.jp/
I read that to say the snoop is lighter and longer. 1630g in 174 vs 1690 for 173. Are you looking at the weight for the big daddy?
post #10 of 21
I haven't skied the Snoops. You may have seen my review on the '06 Sugars (which I loved - 183 cm).

I've also never skied an AT set-up. Isn't versatility and the ability to handle varied terrain the primary consideration in AT?

Some AT fanatics inform me that real powder is relatively rare in the BC, and what they mostly encounter is fluted surfaces, wind-blown crust and occasional ice.

While the Sugar's are surprisingly good on these surfaces (MUCH better than any big ski I've ever been on), wouldn't the Snoop offer more options on such varied terrain?
post #11 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
I read that to say the snoop is lighter and longer. 1630g in 174 vs 1690 for 173. Are you looking at the weight for the big daddy?
: The Atomic data sheet only list weights for one length of ski/model. Heres the entire "float" group list:

Big Daddy (190) 2285g

Sugar Daddy (173) 1690g

Snoop Daddy (174) 1630g

Sweet Daddy (172) 1540g

Slim Daddy (167) 1560g
post #12 of 21
Thread Starter 
Bushwacker, Bill, and Capt. Strato,

Thanks , but unfortunately you guys are NOT making this any easier :.

For a little further clarification: While this is going to be a backcountry ski I want and expect it to get a lot of inbounds work as well. This is because I like to do a considerable amount of hiking and slogging inbounds. I thoroughly enjoy skiing my B5's in just about any conditions and use and enjoy them in anything from hard pack to bumps to crud to bottomless powder. On the snow I don't find it's weight to be an issue at all. However, when climbing and/or slogging that is certainly not the case. Especially with a 2cnd new hip next year I expect to take the Snoop or Sugar Daddy out quite a bit both for inbounds skiing. Beyond that there is also BC skiing days that usually number enywhere from 5-10 per season (with always a hope for more!).
post #13 of 21
I may have misread your post but I guess your concern is the snoop is not significantly enough lighter than the Sugar. Only 60 grams lighter but also in a length 1 centimeter longer. Keep in mind the snoop also has less of a turned up tail so the effective ski length is longer still.

The snoop is also a more substantial ski with greater torsional rigidity and a beefier tail. So you will have substantially improved performance if using it in tougher conditions (hard slab, sun crust or in bounds off piste that may be firm.) but still a somewhat lighter package. Downside, not quite as much float altough the wider tip and soft shovel will assure the tips stay up which is all I ever really want.

Snoop all the way for me but totally depends on what you really want from the ski. BTW I love the Mex and it will do a similar job but I think the snoop will outperform in the truly deep and is a lighter package for lugging about.
post #14 of 21
Thread Starter 
Thanks L7 very helpful feedback on the Snoop.

I have no concern about difference between length or weight for the Snoop and Sugar. For my considerations they are essentially equivalent in length and weight (the lack of a significant weight difference was what was surprising to me).

Can you give me an idea about the basis for your statement:

Quote:
The snoop is also a more substantial ski with greater torsional rigidity and a beefier tail. So you will have substantially improved performance if using it in tougher conditions (hard slab, sun crust or in bounds off piste that may be firm.)
I think this could be a critical issue for my decision in choosing between the two.
post #15 of 21
OK, just to confuse you, let me make a pitch for the sugar. (caveat: I'm a small woman) if the turning radius was a concern, it needn't be; it turns on a dime. I found it remarkably good on (western) hardish groomed snow (getting to the goods) I tried very short ones and found them totally stable. Have not tried the snoops, but strongly suggest you try them both. I think for a 'different' ski than the one you have, the sugar may be your ticket. Still. Whenever possible, try, then buy....
post #16 of 21
Thread Starter 
Mom, thanks for further confusing things.

This is not exactly a decision I will develop much anxiety about but I sure am having a lot of fun with it.

Unfortunately, I won't have the option to demo. Buying on pro form will require a pre-season purchase. As I've just gotten my hip replaced (already have one on the other side) I am unfortunately unable to demo anything for the rest of this season.
post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si
Thanks L7 very helpful feedback on the Snoop.

I have no concern about difference between length or weight for the Snoop and Sugar. For my considerations they are essentially equivalent in length and weight (the lack of a significant weight difference was what was surprising to me).

Can you give me an idea about the basis for your statement:


I think this could be a critical issue for my decision in choosing between the two.
Largely on the basis of flexing the two skis side by side to assess this. You could also refer to a review that I believe Leeroy did a little while back. Search under his name and you should find it pretty quick. Not sure if he has skied the sugar but he's a big guy and skied the snoop on frozen crud I believe.
post #18 of 21
I own the Sugar (183) and it is my favorite deep snow ski. However, since I have gotten two demos in the Snoop (174,185) I have not taken out the SD's for the last six weeks. (over 12' of snow in Tahoe in that period)

For really deep stuff, the SD offers an advantage, but for the typical 1'-2' of mixed chowdah, crud, and wind blown (like most of Tahoe most of the time) I think the Snoop is more fun and more versatile. I'm not going to dump my SD's, but the Snoop goes into my regular quiver for next year.

SJ
post #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Emmett
Si, I can't speak to the Snoops as I've yet to ski them, but my ski this year was the Sugar (183), and it was a wonderful year. BushwackerinPA has expounded on its versatility in non-powder/chop conditions. I support his observations. I will add that for me this was a surprisingly quick ski in off-piste conditions. Even at 183 cm I found myself skiing tight trees with no hesitation (well, except for that time in Hell's Canyon at Snowbasin, but I prefer to call it a "pause to collect my thoughts"). In chop and crud, its stiffness allows for smooth arcs. In really light, deep, and steep powder, its floatation is wonderful, but that same stiffness makes for the occasional pivot turn rather than a more "sink and carve" type turn that a softer and more shapely ski will give. I skied two days at Copper over spring break and hit everything from early morning hard-packed to spring corn to four inches of new, wet snow, and the Sugars performed with aplomb. I would think that as an AT setup, they'd be perfect for Honeycomb Canyon.
FYI for anyone else there is full review now on this forum of the Sugar Daddies and Gotamas
post #20 of 21
Thread Starter 
This is a great yoyo thread. I read one response and lean one way and then another and switch. No worries, it's clear that people think highly of both of these skis and I have little doubt I'll enjoy either one. In either case, please keep contributing with your thoughts or personal experience about these skis.

Thanks, Si
post #21 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si
This is a great yoyo thread. I read one response and lean one way and then another and switch. No worries, it's clear that people think highly of both of these skis and I have little doubt I'll enjoy either one. In either case, please keep contributing with your thoughts or personal experience about these skis.

Thanks, Si
Both skis do their respective jobs very, very well. I happen to view the two jobs differently. While the Snoop could be a hoot as an everyday ski, I think of my SD's as a specialty tool. Fortunately, I have absolutely no intention of choosing between the two, but if I did, the Snoop would be the keeper.

SJ
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion