or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Sizing for Head John 94
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sizing for Head John 94

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 

Hey fellow skiers,

I'm looking to pick up a pair of Head John 94s and I'm wondering about sizing. Im 5'10, 160 with a racing backround (a very competent skier), and will be skiing mostly at Jay Peak, doing a lot of tree skiing. I normally would go for the 180s which would be 400$, but could get the 173s for 250$. Do you guys think they would feel very different/that I should suck it up and throw down the extra 150 or will it not make to much of a difference in which case I'll get the 173s? thank you for any replies

post #2 of 11

Because they are twins, they will ski shorter than the suggested length.  You could go with the 173s if they were traditional skis intended for groomer skiing, but in this case I'd say to round up to the 180s for sure.  WIth a racing background, I think you'd find that the 173 is not enough ski if you pushed it hard, and when you get into powder and soft snow, the extra length will be appreciated.  This is a great ski (my goto ski when I need to do a little of everything or conditions are unknown) and a good deal even at $400.

post #3 of 11
Thread Starter 

Thank you for the reply! Looks like I'll be going for the 180s.

post #4 of 11

You'll like the 180's (I have a pair) especially if you have a race background.  They feel shorter than they are, and the extra length is nice to have if you're ripping on groomers.  It's an extremely versatile ski.

 

One thing that's important to get right with the John 94 is the tuning.  My experience (and that of many others) is that they completely suck out of the wrapper. Once the edge angles are adjusted to 0.5 base and 3.0 side, they ski 100 times better.  I posted about my personal before and after experiences in the tuning and length discussion below (posts #16 and #19).

 

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/93196/2010-head-john-94-opinions-length-recommendation

post #5 of 11

I'll just chime in to agree that I think you'd be happiest with the 180.  I outweigh you by 35# and I ski the 187cm length and love it for just about any condition here at Jackson Hole.  It's a super-versatile ski and it does ski "shorter" than what the nominal length seems to be.

 

Is there no chance at all that you can talk the seller into narrowing that price gap between the 173 and the 180? 

post #6 of 11
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the replies. I ended up ordering the 180's which should get here on monday. Super pumped! As far as the tuning, I was going to set them at 3 on the side and 1 one on the base (what I set my race skis at). For mounting, I'm guessing I should not go with a plate, and should set them about 6cm back from center?

post #7 of 11

Definitely no plate.

 

Personally I don't think you should move the binding back.  The ski has a 19m radius and you don't want them getting sluggish.  Stick with the specs, in my opinion, so that it works well in all conditions.

 

I used a 0.5 base angle because of the ski width.  When a ski is that wide, especially compared to a race ski, it takes more work to get it tipped to the point where the edges engage and it turns. It doesn't take much leg movement to roll a race ski onto it's edge, but you'll find a 94mm ski is very slow to respond.  The 0.5 base edge will provide a bit of help with with the response and you will probably be happier with it if you're stepping over from race skis, like I was.  At those angles, I don't find them grabby in the least, but they react much better to input.

 

They come with 1.0 on the base, so to make things easier you can go to 3 on the side first and see how you like them before going to the extra effort to reset the base angle.  I believe they come from the factory with a 1/1 tune, which probably works well in the park but not so great if you're doing real skiing on them.

post #8 of 11

^^^^ Understand where you're coming from, but you gotta admit that a .5 for a 94 mm ski is unusual, to say the least. Most people would find it pretty grabby in the variable crud and slop we get sometimes. Suspect that OP will do fine with a 1/3; most folks out west use a 1/2. 

post #9 of 11

I'd go 1/2 on this type of ski myself.

 

Definitely mount on the factory line in this case, unless you have the ability to do a detailed BOF/CRS analysis.  Head did a fairly good job spec'ing "the line" on this particular ski, and I would not suggest anyone deviates from that unless they have a real oddball foot size relative to their height.

post #10 of 11

Hey Im looking at the head john 94,s i mostly ski off-piste, powder, steeps, lot's of jumps and drops, and a bit of park. I'm 110lbs 5' 2" and growing. I was thinking about the 159cms so that they'll last a long time. if their i bit long to start off with that's ok. thx

post #11 of 11

I've read everything I can find on this ski, and own the 187cm.  I've not read a single review which indicates the mount point is anything but spot on.

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 › Sizing for Head John 94