EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Length of Obsetheds compared to Hellbents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Length of Obsetheds compared to Hellbents

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

I'm considering a pair of 169 Obsetheds -- they sound kind of short, but I know K2 can measure shorter. My husband has 179 Hellbents that are definitely up over my head, and 7 or 8 cm longer than my 177 Auras. So I'm thinking that the 169s might be okay.

 

Does anyone know if this past year's Obsetheds measure similarly to the previous year's Hellbents? (I'm 5'9", aka 175 cm) I'm looking online, but maybe I have the chance to find a pair in person.

post #2 of 16

Every K2 that I've looked at in the past few years (Recons, Coombas, HB's, obSethed's, Xplorer, and another one or two) are the length indicated when measured from tip to tail in a straight line.  Near as I can tell, every other ski on the market will be shorter than it's indicated length when measured in this manner.  As an extreme contrast (most other brands skis fall somewhere between), I would expect your 177 Aura's to be about 172cm if measured in the same manner (based on my Gotama's, whose length is based on following the base along it's contours and then some).  This pretty much jives with your observation vs. your husband's HB's.  Therefore the 169cm 'Setheds will be about 3cm shorter than your Aura's. 

 

Even still, given the 'Sethed's rockered tip and tail and relative softness they are known to ski shorter than their length would indicate (I can't tell you since I haven't skied it, but would expect the 169cm length to be about right, if a bit short for me @ 5'5" and 130lbs.).  If you like the Aura in the 177 (which is narrower and metal-reinforced) the 169 'Sethed will probably be too short for you (especially since, as a powder-biased ski, it's meant to be skied longer).  A demo (next year?) would be most helpful, but others here may be able to give you better advice if you tell us more about you (weight, ability, preferred terrain, etc.).

 

Good luck....

post #3 of 16
Thread Starter 

I know I should demo, but I'm looking at the REI site, where they are stupid cheap if I use my dividend. It seems like 169 is too short, but 179 (which they don't have anyway) would just be too big.


Weight: 135. Terrain/ability: anything that won't kill me if I fall. These are mainly to be used on trips west of Colorado, although I would use them here in a big dump or heavy snow. I don't really need them, of course, but the price is right and I've been curious about a little rocker. Too bad there isn't a 174. That would be a simple decision.

post #4 of 16

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

...It seems like 169 is too short, but 179 (which they don't have anyway) would just be too big....Weight: 135....

I'm not so sure about the 169.  You must like your skis loooong.  I would expect the 177 Aura to be a handful at our weight (130...135lbs...what's the diff).  Based on my Gotama 176's, I would expect them to be more ski than I need (judging from what I've heard about the unisex Mantra).  OTOH you are 3-4" taller than me (which helps some with a longer ski regardless of weight), but are you sure you're not working harder than you need to ski your Auras? 

 

Maybe someone closer to your height and our weight that's tried the 'Setheds can weigh in?

 

BTW - Yeah that's a tempting price from REI.  I am considering the 'Setheds along with a couple others but have vowed to demo first - I didn't with my Goats and they are not quite what I wanted...but that price...see now what you've done!.

 

post #5 of 16

I'm 5'6" and about 120 pounds.

 

179cm Hellbents were big wonderful floaty boats in pow and crud. They were heavy, but didn't really feel restrictive. Maybe tighter bumps would be a problem on them. Obsetheds in 169cm were probably about 175cm tall, but they felt shorter than my 174cm Guns because of the rocker. Heavier and damper too.

post #6 of 16
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuazBotch View Post

I'm 5'6" and about 120 pounds.

 

179cm Hellbents were big wonderful floaty boats in pow and crud. They were heavy, but didn't really feel restrictive. Maybe tighter bumps would be a problem on them. Obsetheds in 169cm were probably about 175cm tall, but they felt shorter than my 174cm Guns because of the rocker. Heavier and damper too.


How did 179 Hellbents compare with 169 Obsetheds (skiing-wise)?

post #7 of 16

I tried them both out for a few runs Whistler, about a year apart.

 

179cm Hellbents are big wonderful floaty boats in soft snow and fat heavy chattery snowblades on groomed snow. You get more sensations from the tips and tails flopping around than from the snow under your feet in those conditions. Too heavy for park riding.

 

169cm Obsetheds almost feel normal - the tips still chatter and they ski shorter than they look because of the rocker. Edge grip is ok. They are very damp and stable, not very snappy. They were light enough that I could still swing them around in the park, and they are great skiing switch. Visibility was too poor to let them rip off the trails when I tried them.

 

Overall, riding 179 Hellbents in powder and crud was mind-blowingly fun and I'd love a pair if I lived in a powdery place. 169 Obsetheds didn't stand out, maybe because I have tried other similar sized skis that I liked more.

post #8 of 16

Sorry you're not getting any responses to your "are 169cm obSethed's too short for a 5'9" 135lb female skier?" question.  I'm trying to keep your thread alive in hopes that you'll get more feedback, but at this time of year most of us are thinking of other pursuits.  BTW - you never answered my question about how the 177 Aura's feel to you.  Like I said they sound long and, if so, the 169 'Sethed's should be fine. 

 

As I see it your choices are:

  • Purchase the 'Sethed's and hold onto them until you know what you want to do (you have unlimited time to return unmounted skis to REI - heck you could demo them next year and then decide).  If you are concerned about the 169 length you could...
  • Go with the 174cm Salomon Czars, which are about the same length as your Auras, a bit wider and maybe stiffer than the 'Sethed's (or atleast no tail rocker, which seems to suit taller or heavier skiers better based on feedback here), and are only $30 more from REI.

 

Good Luck!  

post #9 of 16
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

Sorry you're not getting any responses to your "are 169cm obSethed's too short for a 5'9" 135lb female skier?" question.  I'm trying to keep your thread alive in hopes that you'll get more feedback, but at this time of year most of us are thinking of other pursuits.  BTW - you never answered my question about how the 177 Aura's feel to you.  Like I said they sound long and, if so, the 169 'Sethed's should be fine. 

 

As I see it your choices are:

  • Purchase the 'Sethed's and hold onto them until you know what you want to do (you have unlimited time to return unmounted skis to REI - heck you could demo them next year and then decide).  If you are concerned about the 169 length you could...
  • Go with the 174cm Salomon Czars, which are about the same length as your Auras, a bit wider and maybe stiffer than the 'Sethed's (or atleast no tail rocker, which seems to suit taller or heavier skiers better based on feedback here), and are only $30 more from REI.

 

Good Luck!  

The good news is that I think I did get an answer to my question, which was really more about the actual lengths of the respective skis than about which one is appropriate for me. I'll have to figure that one out on my own, I think. Unless someone who knows how I ski chimes in, and there aren't terribly many of those around here. :-)

 

No, the 177s aren't too long. I love them to death. It's easier to turn a shorter ski in tight trees or tight bumps, of course, but the Auras are super light and if I have to muscle them around in a small space, it's easy enough. The float and stability of the longer skis, though, is what I can't get from the shorter ones.

 

I looked at those Czars, too. I could go safe and buy some 176 Kikus, but I almost always ski on Volkls and was curious about something different. But of course, in that case, I really should demo.

 

THanks for your input! I might buy something and just hold onto it....

post #10 of 16
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuazBotch View Post

I tried them both out for a few runs Whistler, about a year apart.

 

179cm Hellbents are big wonderful floaty boats in soft snow and fat heavy chattery snowblades on groomed snow. You get more sensations from the tips and tails flopping around than from the snow under your feet in those conditions. Too heavy for park riding.

 

169cm Obsetheds almost feel normal - the tips still chatter and they ski shorter than they look because of the rocker. Edge grip is ok. They are very damp and stable, not very snappy. They were light enough that I could still swing them around in the park, and they are great skiing switch. Visibility was too poor to let them rip off the trails when I tried them.

 

Overall, riding 179 Hellbents in powder and crud was mind-blowingly fun and I'd love a pair if I lived in a powdery place. 169 Obsetheds didn't stand out, maybe because I have tried other similar sized skis that I liked more.

Thanks!

post #11 of 16

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

 

The good news is that I think I did get an answer to my question, which was really more about the actual lengths of the respective skis than about which one is appropriate for me. I'll have to figure that one out on my own, I think. Unless someone who knows how I ski chimes in, and there aren't terribly many of those around here. :-)

 

No, the 177s aren't too long. I love them to death. It's easier to turn a shorter ski in tight trees or tight bumps, of course, but the Auras are super light and if I have to muscle them around in a small space, it's easy enough. The float and stability of the longer skis, though, is what I can't get from the shorter ones.

 

I looked at those Czars, too. I could go safe and buy some 176 Kikus, but I almost always ski on Volkls and was curious about something different. But of course, in that case, I really should demo.

 

THanks for your input! I might buy something and just hold onto it....


Not to keep plying you with my thoughts....  I wouldn't buy the 2009 Kikus since they do not incorporate any tip and/or tail rockering (and, based on my 2008 Gotama's) they are not the greatest powder ski for our weight (even your height).  To make matters worse the 2010 Gotama's (and by association the 2010 Kiku's) have gotten nearly universal negative comments here since it is fully (but slightly) rockered and seems to have the worst of both worlds - neither enough rockering nor any camber.  OTOH QuazBotch's take on the 'Sethed's appears to be the first ho-hum comment from a lightweight on this forum, but alas it is probably too short for you.  I'd stick with something with a decent (or flat) camber underfoot, which means the Czar's (or maybe the beefier 176cm Volkl Katana's which seem to be liked as the powder ski companion to the metal-reinforced Auras/Mantras, though I ain't seen them at a great price) or waiting for the great variety of tip and/or tail rockered skis that will be introduced in 2010.

 

Good Luck and perhaps I'll see you at the slopes (I'm a Copper/WP/Steamboat season passer)

post #12 of 16
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 


Not to keep plying you with my thoughts....  I wouldn't buy the 2009 Kikus since they do not incorporate any tip and/or tail rockering (and, based on my 2008 Gotama's) they are not the greatest powder ski for our weight (even your height).  To make matters worse the 2010 Gotama's (and by association the 2010 Kiku's) have gotten nearly universal negative comments here since it is fully (but slightly) rockered and seems to have the worst of both worlds - neither enough rockering nor any camber.  OTOH QuazBotch's take on the 'Sethed's appears to be the first ho-hum comment from a lightweight on this forum, but alas it is probably too short for you.  I'd stick with something with a decent (or flat) camber underfoot, which means the Czar's (or maybe the beefier 176cm Volkl Katana's which seem to be liked as the powder ski companion to the metal-reinforced Auras/Mantras, though I ain't seen them at a great price) or waiting for the great variety of tip and/or tail rockered skis that will be introduced in 2010.

 

Good Luck and perhaps I'll see you at the slopes (I'm a Copper/WP/Steamboat season passer)

 By the way, what didn't you like about the Gotamas? You're like the first person I've heard who didn't like them. And I have read raves on the 2010 Kiku ... but I think the 2009 was more like an older-style Goat ...

 

Anyway, I think I'll hang onto my dividend and save some money. That Rossignol S6 looks interesting ....

post #13 of 16

Hi seg!

 

For a seat of the pants comparison, I have a pair of 169 Obsethed, and when placed on the wall next to my husband's 177cm Volkl Mantras, they are pretty much the same length.

 

I am 140 pounds, but shorter than you are, and I love the Obsethed.  It totally rocks off-piste and on groomers, if there is ANY new or soft snow at all.  I've had them on hardpack groomers too, and they are manageable-- but I wouldn't ski them all day on hardpack.

 

My Auras haven't seen any snow since I got the Obsethed.  Really.

post #14 of 16
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lori_K View Post

Hi seg!

 

For a seat of the pants comparison, I have a pair of 169 Obsethed, and when placed on the wall next to my husband's 177cm Volkl Mantras, they are pretty much the same length.

 

I am 140 pounds, but shorter than you are, and I love the Obsethed.  It totally rocks off-piste and on groomers, if there is ANY new or soft snow at all.  I've had them on hardpack groomers too, and they are manageable-- but I wouldn't ski them all day on hardpack.

 

My Auras haven't seen any snow since I got the Obsethed.  Really.


Thanks! I did read your review (and skigrl's) on SkiDiva ... definitely piqued my interest. Seriously, if there was a 174, I'd do it in a second. Don't know why I'm hung up on the length, because 5 cm is not much. We shall see. :-)

post #15 of 16

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

 

 By the way, what didn't you like about the Gotamas? You're like the first person I've heard who didn't like them. And I have read raves on the 2010 Kiku ... but I think the 2009 was more like an older-style Goat ...


Yeah it's this ski's near universal popularity that drew me to them without demo'ing them first.  Believe it or not though there are lots of posts damning Volkl for making them progressively stiffer and thereby leaving us with the ski we have today...a minority opinion I should have heeded....

 

The Goat's are great in many conditions (i.e., semi-packed, variable, crud, bumps), but my Watea 84's are as good or better in these conditions and can handle harder conditions to-boot.  I bought the Goat's to be my in-bounds deep snow ski (I spend alot of time tree-skiing @ Steamboat where lots of deep untracked snow can be found even when the snow report didn't say "dump").  In these conditions they seem too torsionally rigid to float well without: a) sitting back quite a bit (not my preferred technique nor good in tight trees), and/or b) speed (fine for most situations except tight trees).  They also want to seek bedrock and carve - they don't take well to powder-oriented turning techniques such as smearing and swiveling.  In fact, in many deeper snow conditions (i.e.,., lighter and consistent) they are also no better then my W84's and overall are worse powder skis than my former 90mm K2 AK "noodle" Launchers (with the hassle of hauling an additional 15mm width around). 
 

Can I ski them in all sorts of powder well - yes (just like I could ski powder on my old 65mm, 195cm GS skis), but they take way too much muscle and energy than that expected from a 105mm boat.  I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they are popular despite my impressions because:

  1. Most skiers on the 176cm version probably weigh much more than I do (I've seen 200lb guys on this length).  OTOH I wasn't going to buy them in the 168cm, which is a ridiculously short ski.
  2. Most skiers use them more as a one-ski quiver and praise it for its versatility.  I'd also bet that many of them don't take them into truly deep snow and/or tight trees.  These skis have that cachet that attracts all sorts of skier abilities skiiing all sorts of terrain (rather than just experts focusing on challenging off-piste conditions).

 

I wanted a ski that was very good in all forms of deep snow with just enough edge-grip to make the short groomed run stretches back to the lifts not as harrowing as that for an uber-wide fully rockered powder ski.  Instead I got a ski that's too well-designed for those short groomed runs and not soft enough for deep snow (at least under my 5'5" 130lbs frame).

 

TMI?

post #16 of 16

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

 

And I have read raves on the 2010 Kiku ... but I think the 2009 was more like an older-style Goat ...

 

Anyway, I think I'll hang onto my dividend and save some money. That Rossignol S6 looks interesting ....

I'm basing my opinion of the 2010 Kiku's on what I've read here about the 2010 Goat's which is pretty negative.  Perhaps the Kiku's don't have the same rocker design as the Goat's - dunno (and I haven't seen the positive reviews for the Kiku's).

 

The Rossi S6's are standard cambered skis and probably won't ski powder much different than the 2009 Kiku's/Gotamas.  The S7's however are a whole different animal and something also to consider....  However, I want to repeat my recommendation for you to look at the Volkl Katana's - like I said they seem to be the powder ski "companion" to the Mantras.  In fact, last time I was at the Arvada CO Ski & Golf they had the 176 '08 Katanas (same ski as the '09's) at a good price along with the 174 Czars - they deal and/or price match, and can tell you what they think of this choice.

 

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 › Length of Obsetheds compared to Hellbents