EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › sugar daddy vs janak (and Bro soft?)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

sugar daddy vs janak (and Bro soft?)

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Has anyone skiied both the Sugar Daddy and Janak to compare differences (if any)? I intend to use Salomon bindings so not really curious about performance as telemark ski. How would these two Atomics compare to 183 Bro soft? Thanks.
post #2 of 12
Odd comparo. I have skied the SD's, they are light, stiff, some like them for AT, but I thought they only came alive at higher speeds and felt too lively on hardpack or in stiffer crud. Janeks I assume would be softer, lighter still, even less happy on hardpack since they're a dedicated AT/tele ski. Everybody here seems to love soft Bros, but from what I read, is seriously different ski from first two, more all mountain soft snow, damp, wood core.

Maybe if you explained what you want these for, how you tend to ski, and how you came to pick these three?
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
Currently have 179 Karhu Jak Team (same as Line Prophet 100)for new snow and particularly for going in the trees at the local ski resort, both situations where the Karhu excel. With these having Naxo 21 bindings to allow taking advantage of sidecountry, I am having some issues with chatter when edging hard on firm snow. Don't want to give up the Naxos at this point so looking for another ski, more like 183 cm to put Salomon bindings on for mixed conditions and crud and for when skiing bigger nearby mountains at Aspen, and Crested Butte.
I have demoed 183 Sugar Daddys 2008 version and agree with your assessment of the ski. Just wondering how the often available Janak and the higly regarded Bros would compare to Sugar Daddy (or Line/Karhu 100 for that matter). Thanks for the input.
post #4 of 12

Sugar Daddy Comps

Quote:
Originally Posted by niege111 View Post
Has anyone skiied both the Sugar Daddy and Janak to compare differences (if any)? I intend to use Salomon bindings so not really curious about performance as telemark ski. How would these two Atomics compare to 183 Bro soft? Thanks.

I AM LOOKING FOR A LIGHTWEIGHT SKI ( LIKE THE SUGAR DADDY).
HOWEVER, I WOULD WANT A SKI THAT IS NOT AS STIFF FOR I AM NOT A STRONG SKIIER...i.e. A MARGINAL INTERMEDIATE
I AM HOPING THAT i CAN USE MY CREDIT AT THE LOCAL SKI/BIKE STORE.
THEY SELL K2/FISHER/SALOMON.
ANY SUGGESTIONS WILL BE HELPFUL.
post #5 of 12
Niege, if I were looking for a ski to handle mixed conditions at a resort like Aspen or CB, it would be something like a:

iM88/94 (for beefy damp speed demon preferences),
Watea 94 or Goliath Sluff (for lighter, lively pref), or
Mantras or Blizzard Cronus IQ's (for smooth, stable, and easy turning pref), or
Bridges or 4 Frnt MSP's (for twin tip aficionados who want some bite).

Oddly, I've heard that the Prophet/Karhu 100 is pretty decent on hardpack. So if it doesn't do the trick for you, probably go for something on the serious edge hold side of things like the iM88 or Blizzards.

Oldefarms, if you are also wanting a mixed conditions midfat ski, and are limited to those three brands, hard to go wrong with a Salomon Fury or Fischer Watea 84 from your store. For something more specialized toward soft snow, Salomon Gun, or K2 Public Enemy are suitable for intermediates upward.
post #6 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Niege, if I were looking for a ski to handle mixed conditions at a resort like Aspen or CB, it would be something like a:

iM88/94 (for beefy damp speed demon preferences),
Watea 94 or Goliath Sluff (for lighter, lively pref), or
Mantras or Blizzard Cronus IQ's (for smooth, stable, and easy turning pref), or
Bridges or 4 Frnt MSP's (for twin tip aficionados who want some bite).

Oddly, I've heard that the Prophet/Karhu 100 is pretty decent on hardpack. So if it doesn't do the trick for you, probably go for something on the serious edge hold side of things like the iM88 or Blizzards.

Oldefarms, if you are also wanting a mixed conditions midfat ski, and are limited to those three brands, hard to go wrong with a Salomon Fury or Fischer Watea 84 from your store. For something more specialized toward soft snow, Salomon Gun, or K2 Public Enemy are suitable for intermediates upward.

Thanks for your help...Actually I am looking for something that would be wider under foot (94-100) as well as lightweight and NOT STIFF... What about the Watea 94 or the Salomon Gun or the K2 Coomba?
Thanks again
post #7 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldefarms View Post
Thanks for your help...Actually I am looking for something that would be wider under foot (94-100) as well as lightweight and NOT STIFF... What about the Watea 94 or the Salomon Gun or the K2 Coomba?
Thanks again
RE: Watea 94
I asked this question for a friend who was weighing the 84/94.
Wildcat said it very well..........

Quote:
Originally Posted by WILDCAT View Post
OK,

The 84 is a great ski for natural conditions. Not so great on man-made snow, not enough edgegrip or stability IMO. I skied the longest length, it was very fun with most of the performance of the Head 82, a benchmark in this class. The Watea 84 is much easier to use than the Head and floats very well in softer snow but is not as stable or with the same edgegrip. My 130 lbs daughter will use the 176cm size Watea 84 as her soft snow ski.

The 94 is probably the best ski in its class. Easy to use with a much greater performance upside than the 84. Only a few users will ever find its limits in any conditions.

The 101 is a great ski, not as beefy as a Dynastar XXL, but it provides 95% of that skis performance while being much better on hardpack at normal speeds. The most versatile ski in its class, IMHO.

Michael
post #8 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldefarms View Post
I AM LOOKING FOR A LIGHTWEIGHT SKI ( LIKE THE SUGAR DADDY).
HOWEVER, I WOULD WANT A SKI THAT IS NOT AS STIFF FOR I AM NOT A STRONG SKIIER...i.e. A MARGINAL INTERMEDIATE
I AM HOPING THAT i CAN USE MY CREDIT AT THE LOCAL SKI/BIKE STORE.
THEY SELL K2/FISHER/SALOMON.
ANY SUGGESTIONS WILL BE HELPFUL.
If you can find a pair of Atomic Heli Daddy, you would be set perfectly. Exact same dimensions as the Sugar Daddy, with a softer tip, and no upturn on the tail. Very light for their size. As far as I know, only made for CMH, but they sell their skis off every couple of years, so you can sometimes find them floating around the internet.
post #9 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOLOCOMan View Post
If you can find a pair of Atomic Heli Daddy, you would be set perfectly. Exact same dimensions as the Sugar Daddy, with a softer tip, and no upturn on the tail. Very light for their size. As far as I know, only made for CMH, but they sell their skis off every couple of years, so you can sometimes find them floating around the internet.
Check with MtLion, he buys these from CMH, and re-sells them.

Ditto what Beyond said about the Sugar Daddy; a fairly stiff, but light ski that can really grab on nasty crap, and blow through crud. But, it requires oomph to bend it. They're also not super-turny. As I recall, a 29-meter side-cut? That's a good thing if you're hitting serious speed.

The 173 is the better length for many people. I'm 6'1", and I found the 183 unweildy. But, I'm not young and super-strong.

I now have the 183 Gotama's, and they're easier to manage. But, the Sugar's are lighter, with slightly better edge-hold. Many love them for AT.
post #10 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
Check with MtLion, he buys these from CMH, and re-sells them.

Ditto what Beyond said about the Sugar Daddy; a fairly stiff, but light ski that can really grab on nasty crap, and blow through crud. But, it requires oomph to bend it. They're also not super-turny. As I recall, a 29-meter side-cut? That's a good thing if you're hitting serious speed.

The 173 is the better length for many people. I'm 6'1", and I found the 183 unweildy. But, I'm not young and super-strong.

I now have the 183 Gotama's, and they're easier to manage. But, the Sugar's are lighter, with slightly better edge-hold. Many love them for AT.
I agree with you about the Atomic Heli Daddys...Are you sure that the Heli Daddy is a special ski for CMH...I cannot believe that Atomic does not make that ski for its mainstream cuistomers with a different top sheet.

In any event the Mrs. would become highly agitated if I did not use the $689.00 credit that I have at the Ski/ Bike store.

I think that limits me to K2/Fisher/ Atomic and maybe Salomon
So at this point I am thinking about the Watea 94.
All help is welcome on this issue
post #11 of 12
Have only skied 180 Heli Daddies (=Sugars with straight tail) and Soft Bros 179 (the Tahoe made).

Out of those two the Daddies for sure but recent models differ from those I heard. The Daddies are supposed to have softened up and the Europe made 183 Soft Bros have been stiffened up. If this is true then definitely the Bros for the wood core and less weight.
post #12 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldefarms View Post
Thanks for your help...Actually I am looking for something that would be wider under foot (94-100) as well as lightweight and NOT STIFF... What about the Watea 94 or the Salomon Gun or the K2 Coomba?
Thanks again
Uh, I think I mentioned the Gun in the last para, can't speak to the Coomba since never skied it or the Chief and generally don't like K2's, but lots of folks love it and it would work for your needs. IMO the Watea 94 is a great ski, but going to be a handful for a marginal intermediate and is probably stiffer than you state you want; you could work into it if you were committed to some lessons. If you're wiling to go a touch wider, a 176 Gotama would be doable for an athletic intermediate, has more versatility than any of the other skis mentioned, and is one of the lightest skis of its size out there. Look for last year's, which is a bit softer.
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 › sugar daddy vs janak (and Bro soft?)