EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Jet Fuel's vs Pocket Rocket's in Powder question?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jet Fuel's vs Pocket Rocket's in Powder question?

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
I am wondering if I will like my new Jet Fuel's in 4"-10" of fresh powder as much as I like my Pocket Rockets. My PRs are easy, quick turning and great for dodging rocks and dancing from pillow to pillow. Will my my new 170cm Jet Fuel's, which I have yet to try, be about as nimble in shallow powder? (I have 180cm Porohete's for deeper snow). My PR's are 175cm but with the kicked up tails they have less running surface than my JFs and about the same surface area. I weigh 175lbs and ski everyday. It would be much more convenient for me to sell my PR's before I move back to Tahoe.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

dt
post #2 of 18
The PR is a top notch pow ski for its size. You would be surfing in 10" on those. The Jet fuel is a fat GS ski. You will be skiing on the old surface lafter 10" down. I doubt you will find a ski in that size range that is more of a bottom feeder than the jet fuel. Go Rent Das Boot and the Hunt for Red October then get ready to Dive! Dive! Dive!
post #3 of 18
DO NOT sell your PR's. Just save them for real pow days. Pow performance is more about flex than surface area...
post #4 of 18
your jet fuels will become your hard snow ski. They will not replace your pow sticks.

as stated, it is a fatter GS ski. race stock plus width. It will machine through crud and arc groomers like nothign else in your line up.

I love mine when it's time to arc. I don't take them out on fresh days. Those days are for my gotamas.
post #5 of 18
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the feedback. Maybe I got the wrong skis. I have Fischer SC's and SL's for firm days and I have Fischer Porohete's, 135-106-123 for snow that's a foot or more deep. I wouldn't think the JFs would dive in snow less than a foot deep because the tips are 126mm wide which is a little wider than the tips of the PRs. I was hoping the JFs would ski more like a shorter version of my old Volkl G41's which were great GS carvers with stiff tips and also great for snow up to a foot deep. They wouldn't dive until the snow was light and deeper than a foot. They were great for the day after a good powder day when there was lots of soft snow and the occasional stash of fresh. On firm snow I prefer much narrower waisted skis.

dt
post #6 of 18
Methinks you axe this question at the wrong time. The proper time would have been before you purchased the JF instead of after.

JF = Great ski but.............notsomuchso in powdah. (Better than an AC-40 though)

SJ
post #7 of 18
interesting... I bought my jet fuel to replace my old G4 and G41s. I also consider it a brilliant decision. The G41s, however, were softer, making them more pow friendly than the jet fuels are.

be careful. If you ride the jet fuels on hard snow, you may no longer like your narrower counterparts. I'm not exaggerating either. After riding that ski on groomers, I'll sure as hell never go narrower.

I don't run race courses though either.

Oh... and they will be great on the days after a pow day with only the occasional stash. That's a crud-ripping ski, dude. That's what it was designed for. I think it's a rocking addition to your quiver.

There is no doubt in my mind which ski between the PR and the JF that I would take out on a non-fresh day.
post #8 of 18
Thread Starter 
Thanks for your responses. I will definitely keep my Pocket Rockets at least until I have tried the Jet Fuels in a few inches of fresh.

I did quite a bit of research in this forum before I bought the Fuels and I thought there were posts from two skiers who used Jet Fuels 80% of the time. One lived in Steamboat and the other was an instructor at Sugar Bowl. I thought they both liked their Jet Fuels as powder skis but maybe I misread.

dt
post #9 of 18
Wait...you have 180 Porohete's, too? Why would you ever ski PR, in pow with those in the quiver?

Sell the PR's...they are too short anyhow.

I owned 175's and 185's in the PR, for sake of reference.
post #10 of 18
2nd on selling the PRs b/c: a) you're 175 lbs; b) you ski everyday; and c) have Porohete's for pow & JF's for crud/hard snow.
post #11 of 18
Another vote to "Save the Porohete's" those are a highly underappreciated ski.

SJ
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino View Post
2nd on selling the PRs b/c: a) you're 175 lbs; b) you ski everyday; and c) have Porohete's for pow & JF's for crud/hard snow.
he said what I've been trying to say.
post #13 of 18
Thread Starter 
I thought this thread died a long time ago but now I see a lot more comments. Thanks for the feeback.

My PR's are definitely too short for deep snow but I like them if it is less than a foot deep. With the Porohete's it can be harder to control speed, in trees for example, in light snow that is less than a foot deep. The PR's are great for that because they make much tighter turns than the Porohete's. I think the JF's might work as well as the PRs in snow less than a foot deep. I can't imagine tip diving being a problem because there is no where to dive to when the snow is only a foot deep. In a foot of snow, after skis get 8" deep the snow compresses and keeps the wide tips from going any deeper unless you really force them.

I used to have 185 cm PRs but they got stolen at a time when I had lost 25 lbs because of a health problem. I replaced them with 175's which were perfect when I weighed 150 lbs. Now that I am back up to my "Fighting weight" I still like the shorter PRs in everything but deeper snow. That is why I got the Porohete's.

I will keep the PRs at least until after I try the JFs. It will still be easy to sell the PRs even if I don't get around to it until after xmas.

dt
post #14 of 18

jet fuels in 10 or less...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DT View Post
Thanks for your responses. I will definitely keep my Pocket Rockets at least until I have tried the Jet Fuels in a few inches of fresh.

I did quite a bit of research in this forum before I bought the Fuels and I thought there were posts from two skiers who used Jet Fuels 80% of the time. One lived in Steamboat and the other was an instructor at Sugar Bowl. I thought they both liked their Jet Fuels as powder skis but maybe I misread.

dt
Hi DT,
I think you are talking about me here, so I'll hop in.
I have been pleasantly surprized by the performance of my JF in less then 10in, even in the 170 (i'm 167lbs). As described above, they are a MUCH different feel then your PR, and that reference will shape your perceptions. I flat out hated the PR (and I don't feel that way about too many skis, and often the case is tune or bad mounting point. I think the PR mounting point may have been off). That ski is gets pushed around by the snow, while the jf pushes the snow around. that said the JF dives way less then many skis in this catagory. I feel it's less of a bottom feeder then the G41 (i had the green 178). The worst ski I've ever skied in this general size for seeking the bottom was the atomic 10ex, which in my experiece was more of spear then a ski. So, the JF is far more versatile in soft snow then many give it credit for. It has just enough forbody flex to behave well in the 10in minus.

I"m with some others here, adios the PR, adios the skinny skis, keep the JF for skiing on the snow and 8-10 minus and the prohete for deeper.

cheers,
holiday
post #15 of 18
Thread Starter 
Holiday,

Now I remember your name. Thanks for the encouraging info.

It would be nice to ditch my skinny skies but, on the other hand, I hope the JFs are torsionally softer than my skinny skis because the skinny skis are kinda scary in goop. Maybe that is more because they are skinny but I always assumed that their torsional stiffness was partly responsible. Either way, I am sure I will like the JFs. Now I am even more anxious to try them.

dt
post #16 of 18
I just bought 170 JFs as my everyday all condition ski to teach on. I haven't skied it yet. I know several instructors who love the top fuel and the jet fuel and admired their style enough that I went that way. For me the JF will be replacing my 188 G4 that I've had for years which replaced several pairs of 200 snow rangers. I've been drinking the PSIA cool aid and think that I like short skis now. I'll let you know in several weeks how versatile the ski really is. I can ski any thing in powder I always buy for crud and bad snow which is what I really see more often.
post #17 of 18
I also 2nd selling the pocket rockets....heres my reasoning....
You said your moving back to Tahoe...Tahoe pow, 90% of the time is pretty heavy stuff. In heavier powder, which turns into even heavier and nastier crud, (pow never lasts all day either) you need a ski that can bash through crud and heavier powder. I think the pocket rockets are too soft (soon to be softer) and too short, especially when you already have the porohetes. The Jf's will be pretty decent in <10 in powder, and you will be loving them when it gets tracked out.
post #18 of 18
I just opened my season here on a crud day.

Thank god I have my JFs. These things fricking rip.

Tanks on speed skates that pull out of carve with zero effort to scrub speed.

I can't imagine not having them in my quiver. (but mine are 186, and they're mamagantic and they go wwaaaaay faster than me.)
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 › Jet Fuel's vs Pocket Rocket's in Powder question?