Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

09 Blends or seths

profile picture
Brows.
Posts: 1497 - Karma: 13
due to the incovience of my literacy i had to make i different thread asking the real question that i was wondering...... 09 BLENDS or seths?
Aug 24 2008 12:49AM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
You should go by the graphic and what looks better.
Aug 24 2008 1:03AM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686
I agree, ski tech is way over rated. graphics decide 90% of how happy you will be with the ski anyway.
Aug 24 2008 1:06AM
0 0
profile picture
Brows.
Posts: 1497 - Karma: 13
well i like the blends graphic more... but the seths are slightly rockered so its a hard decison......also theyre like way more expensive than the blends which makes it a confusing choice
Aug 24 2008 1:07AM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
AHAHHAHHAHHAH
Aug 24 2008 1:13AM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
I'm so sorry. Look, facts like what you ski and you're height, weight would be helpful. Actually, essential.
Aug 24 2008 1:13AM
0 0
profile picture
Brows.
Posts: 1497 - Karma: 13
????
Aug 24 2008 1:14AM
0 0
profile picture
Brows.
Posts: 1497 - Karma: 13
5'10 135 lbs...... i dont understand why you went hahaha
Aug 24 2008 1:18AM
0 0
profile picture
miroz
Posts: 10333 - Karma: 3,945
(sigh)...Ok, so. 

1) He was kidding.  Graphics don't mean shit, they just look cool.

2) You should give us more info about yourself so that we can judge better.  Maybe height, weight, skier ability, where you ski, what type of skiing, etc.

3) You're god awful at detecting sarcasm.  No offense, but really, you are,
Aug 24 2008 1:19AM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
Sorry, its just funny to be deciding things based on looks rather than performance. Really different skis too. What do you like to ride, park, powder, all mountain?
Aug 24 2008 1:21AM
0 0
profile picture
miroz
Posts: 10333 - Karma: 3,945
Rowen I've never seen you so sarcastic!
Aug 24 2008 1:22AM
0 0
profile picture
Brows.
Posts: 1497 - Karma: 13
theres no such thing as sarcasm on text..... if you saw my last thread im rather slow but yea the reason the decision is hard is because i ski upstate ny and we dont have that much powder and im looking for a ski that on those days you can take them into the powder and im afraid the seths are too much.... and the graphics matter to me
Aug 24 2008 1:23AM
0 0
profile picture
miroz
Posts: 10333 - Karma: 3,945
Of course there's a such thing as e-sarcasm because his comment was so blatantly obviously stupid.  You should never make a decision on skis, boots, or bindings based on graphics.  Seriously, because you'll end up getting pwned with gear you can't handle but looks cool.  Come on.  Of course graphics "matter" but not enough to make a decision.

And about that height/weight/skier ability?
Aug 24 2008 1:26AM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
It really depends on what you like, I can ride my Madens on icy days and still have a blast. The new seths are slightly rockered, so they may ride a little different than what you're used to. Chronics are solid skis, and can perform in powder, but not to the extent of Seths. If you want a good go between you might want to look into the Line Sir Francis Bacon, as its wide, buttery for park and goofin, and no rockered, so it can perform better all mountain.

And the graphics shouldnt matter.
Aug 24 2008 1:28AM
0 0
profile picture
miroz
Posts: 10333 - Karma: 3,945
Oh wow, I'm sorry, I didn't see that you had posted it already...duh, I guess I'm stupid too.

Blends are just as big as Seths, so don't worry about the Seths being "too much."  Seths are probably a smidgen softer than the Blends.  The Blends are 100mm underfoot while the Seths are upper 90 somethings.

I ski Rossi Scratch BCs on the East coast and I love them.  They're medium stiffness and 98mm in the waist, so don't think you don't "need" them.  We're not even close to the realm of fat skis yet. 

I'll let someone who has more experience with the skis tell you more, I think my info was good.
Aug 24 2008 1:29AM
0 0
profile picture
Brows.
Posts: 1497 - Karma: 13
yea dude you helped fine im pretty set on blends now cuz the seths would be something that had a lil more powder....and i would love to get the bacons cuz my friend has them and he says theyre great
Aug 24 2008 1:35AM
0 0
profile picture
tons.
Posts: 173 - Karma: 3
yo straight up no skis...go barefoot..fuck the blends and the po po
Aug 24 2008 1:51AM
0 0
profile picture
yeahitsdave
Posts: 1315 - Karma: 10
agreed. i have scratch bc's that i rode all season two years ago. they slay everything.

if u ride any park, id look at something smalled because of your size. do you like a softer or stiffer ski? on the super soft side you could do anthems, which are wide enough to play in soft snow, or the new kung fujas, which is a touch stiffer and wider than the anthems. both will be jibby and playful, and still work well on the occasional soft snow days the ice coast gets.
Aug 24 2008 1:57AM
0 0
profile picture
yeahitsdave
Posts: 1315 - Karma: 10
and by your size i mean weight. at 135 you could probably float on snowblades.
Aug 24 2008 1:58AM
0 0
profile picture
Brows.
Posts: 1497 - Karma: 13
well i already have a pair of stls so my park skis are taken care of im just looking for a semi powder ski i guess is the only way to describe it
Aug 24 2008 2:03AM
0 0
profile picture
miroz
Posts: 10333 - Karma: 3,945
Well, you could go with any of these skis, but I think the Kung Fujas will actually be the most versital for you.
Aug 24 2008 9:48AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)