or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Hot Rod Jet Fuel or Afterburner for me???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hot Rod Jet Fuel or Afterburner for me???

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 
Maybe you can help me decide which skis I would prefer for the days after the freshies are gone but before the groomers stay smooth. These skis will be for blasting through snow on tracked up soft groomers, soft snow mellow bumps, occasional windpack, wind buff, powder less than 8" deep and off piste corn.

I have big powder skis for fresh snow and race skis for firm days. Now I want skis for those days after a storm when freshies are gone but the snow is too soft to stay groomed smooth for long. I have been using Pocket Rockets and Volkl G4's for this but I want to replace them with skis with more sidecut. The 188 cm G4's are excellent but they have a big turning radius. I use the the Pocket Rockets more because they are much easier in steeps and bumps or when the visibility is poor or on firmer snow when I wanted to carve and still keep speed under control.

Since I did like the fairly burly G4's in 188cm I would think I would like the Jet Fuels in 170 cm. Especially since they have a lot more sidecut and are relatively short. However, in softer snow shorter skis can washout in hard charging carved turns so maybe I would prefer 178cm Afterburner's? On the other hand, since Afterburners are softer they might get kicked around in crud a little too much. I think it all depends on how stiff the Jet Fuels are and how much softer the Afterburners are. What do you think? I am very much a gear head but some of you guys have me beat. I respect your judgement and appreciate any comments.

Here is my current quiver:
Porohete's 180cm 106cm waist
Volkl G4 188cm 84 waist
Pocket Rockets 175cm 91cm waist
Fischer WC RC 170
Fischer WC SL 161
Fischer WC SC 160

I weigh 175 lbs, ski in Tahoe about 80 days per year, have been skiing for 45 years and I'm kinda anal about carving but back off on that when off piste. I don't ski as fast as I used to and prefer SL skis on hard snow. The love my 161cm Fischer WC SL's but the 165's are too stiff for me. That should give you an idea of how I ski.

I was considering Salomon Fury's, you might have noticed my previous thread, but now I think they might be too soft and the 180's might be hard to find on sale. It looks like there is more inventory of the Nordica Hot Rods.

post #2 of 5
I tried demos of next year's Afterburners and they do not get pushed around in crud - I skied the 178 and loved it. The snow conditions ranged from icy spring morning conditions to afternoon slurpee and everything in between. Took them on some steep, soft bumps and would have preferred something a bit shorter (I'm 5'8" and about 180 - so I definitely mean a shorter ski, not a shorter me!). Great length for bigger lines and definitely rewarded more aggressive skiing and faster speeds. I haven't skied the Jet Fuel, but the absence of metal in the Afterburner setup does not mean that it's a noodle (at least I sure didn't find it that way). It's on my re-visit list in the fall.
post #3 of 5
I too have a G41/G4 in a 188 as a foundational history. I'm only 5'9" 170lbs but actually ride a jet fuel in a 186 to compliment my 183 gotama/fritche. (I ski hard and fast and demand arcs on cord.)

In relation to the G4, the jet fuel is stiffer. But it is also way turnier on piste and off. My fist week, I considered it a demanding ski, but once I got dialed into it, I don't think I would value the Afterburner as much as I do my Jet Fuel, except in fresh snow. That seems to be the only place I really need speed to turn them.

I can understand your dilemma between the stiffer and the softer. The metal is not what makes it stiffer, but rather what aids in dampness. You may also consider that metal and bumps don't mix. I never ski bumps, so my selection was a bit easier. The Jet Fuels are also pretty heavy, though I only notice that weight when they're on my shoulder. Personally, I think your new purchase would probably hang up your G4 for quite some time. If my G4 were actually with me in Japan, I can't imagine prefering it over my Jet Fuel. I would consider my G4 as an early season rock ski.

Perhaps you've seen my Jet Fuel review, but I will just reiterate that that ski seriously cranks highspeed arcs very quickly from side to side. I do alot of night skiing on piste and have yet to exceed its speed limit. I'm talking 40 mph edge-to-edge 20 meter radius turns. I have heard some say they feel dead and too damp and stiff. That is only below the 20 mph mark, above that, they whirl all over the place and deserve credit up there with the best of race-stock carving skis.

I would simplify it like this; more than 50% of this ski's time off piste= Afterburner. More than 50% of this ski's time on piste= jet fuel.
post #4 of 5
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input.

If the 170cm or 178cm Jet Fuel is too stiff for my 175 lbs in 8" of powder, then I should get Afterburners. I prefer skis with metal in them for crud but I need these to work in shallow powder. I already have enough skis for carving up firm groomers so I don't need the stiffness for that. I will use these skis about 50/50 off piste but I would always use them in softer snow that is 1" to 8" deep. The bumps I would take them in would be soft and mellow, not deep enough to permanently bend metal.

Please don't tell this to anyone but I am hoping the Jet Fuels are not too stiff because they match my Red and White Tecnica Magma's better than the orange Afterburners. Unfortunately, I suspect the Afterburners would be better for my application because too much torsional stiffness can be a nuisance in heavier soft snow.

post #5 of 5
So get Metron 9's. They will look nice with the Technicas.
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 › Hot Rod Jet Fuel or Afterburner for me???