Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 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!

Hell bent vs. JJs

profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
Hey, i was wondering if any of you could help me out. i have been skiing for a long time now so i think im advanced... but i dont know much about pow skis. i am 5' 8 and 100 pound (skinny) and would probable need about 175s, right? i live in the south west, so not epic pow, but places to find it, thats for shure. i was thinking i wanted a soft flex rocked ski because i really want to see how rocker feels. i would use it for pow, jibbing, cliffs, no ice really, some groomed, and a tiny bit of park. i am worried bout what will be good for buttering. any help welcome.
ps: i tryed searchbar but found no one as skinney as me looking at this stuff so i thought that i should start a new thread...........
Aug 24 2008 10:51PM
0 0
profile picture
Style+eeze
Posts: 6901 - Karma: 551
i think that jjs would be good
i heard that the 09's are amazing
Aug 24 2008 11:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
mostly talked about me in the first post huh, but about the skis. both grafix are sick, but i was wondering which has better verastility, if the JJ has enough rocker to really make for fun buttering, and if the hell bents are too heavy for me
any responses?
thanks
Aug 24 2008 11:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Yosh
Posts: 341 - Karma: 19
I'd say JJ's cuz for what your saying your gonna doo. jj"s will be more all around then bents. plus you still get the rocker
Aug 24 2008 11:26PM
0 0
profile picture
poopshark
Posts: 17 - Karma: 15
Do the JJ's bro!! Its multi dimensional cut, and Armadas patented "elf shoe" technology, the  jj will be a perfect ski for any newschooler lookin to take charge in the pow and backcountry. The jj has early rising tip/tails and rocker, but it also has a thin waist which gives it the camber to carve on groomers. Im acutally deciding between the same skis, and I've done alot of research and I say do the jj's.
Aug 24 2008 11:37PM
0 0
profile picture
phishfood
Posts: 2542 - Karma: 298

if your talking about east coast/ice/park when you say versatile, the JJs are gonna be more stable and solid doing that kind of skiing. however a lot of EC ppl own hellbents for just overall butters and jibbing fun. so the question is, do u want a ski thats stable on crud/ice, or one thats more playful.

however, i've never skied either so i'm not gonna comment any further. thats what i can tell based off what i've heard about both skis.
Aug 24 2008 11:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
jj=lighter
armada=i get 50 pecent off
you help=apreciated
anything else i should know=because i need to?
Aug 24 2008 11:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
jjs are still farly lively/ playful at me stenth thugh right?
Aug 24 2008 11:42PM
0 0
profile picture
phishfood
Posts: 2542 - Karma: 298
thats your answer right there, end thread
u'll save a lot of money getting JJs
Aug 25 2008 12:07AM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
sorry dude, but kinda not "the end of thread"...
what about length and bindings, i was thinking 175 with marker griffins for the JJs, good idea? bad idea?

peace
Aug 25 2008 7:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
don't really have a choice on length, but close to correct hopefully..,
Aug 25 2008 8:06PM
0 0
profile picture
jca
Posts: 4172 - Karma: 6,310
that is called sidecut
Aug 25 2008 8:23PM
0 0
profile picture
DangerToes
Posts: 1042 - Karma: 33
hey dude sound like youve got a good setup, but I would take note that the jjs have skinny edges, so maybe not the best for use on rails (hellbents have regular edges) and also that nobody here has actually ridden the jjs, its just the ski of the month to blindly recommend. that said theyve had good magazine reviews, and sounds like the best potential design i could think of and if i werent completely broke, i would be buying a pair. just keep that in mind, and the hellbents are still a good option. and ive ridden the marker bindings and I definitely like them, although they have felt questionable on rails to me (i like metal bindings). thats about it, cant go wrong either way, unless you hit tons of rails and blow out the jjs in the first week.
Aug 25 2008 8:30PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
^^thanks for the help bro, most useful so far.
i would think about the ep pro if they were shorter (182 or whatever is way to big, right?), cuz there soft, lighter than the hellbents, and i get 50 percent of line skis too.
ill figure it out and the griffins do sound good.
post if you think that ep pro could be an option, if not its all good
thanks a ton
Aug 25 2008 8:49PM
0 0
profile picture
DangerToes
Posts: 1042 - Karma: 33
hey dude, so i was your size about 2 years ago, and honestly until you get a little bigger the ep pros will probably feel a little clunky, they are super soft in the tips and tails but pretty solid underfoot which can get hard to throw around at your size. Ive skiied the hellbents and I would highly recommend them for what youre doing. youre kind of at an in-between size for them as they measure about 6 cm longer than they are, so if you ski more pow than def go with the 179 (youll grow into them a bit and ittl improve your skiing having a longer ski, especially if you mount them core center its not that bad with the rocker) and if youre looking for a strait up rockered park ski than go 169, but really Id go with the 179 if i were you, longer skis are just better in my opinion. sorry that got a bit run-onny. Anyways, so the hellbent 179 is a good bet, they do good on rails too. So either that, or if youre not hitting rails the jj is probably still a good option. i dont know how much you ski switch, but if youre not looking for a true twin, the 4frnt ehps would also be a good option, you can get them in a true 179 and theyre a really really fun ski. the non-twin tip definitely helps you lock into turns better and stomp your landings. it does have tail rocker so you can still take off stomped out inruns or whatever, but if youre looking for sw/ in pow than go with the other 2. thats a lot of typing but i hope it helps.
Aug 25 2008 9:01PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
hey dude, the more the better, you know. ill be skiing swich alot, so i think ehps are out of the question. my skis now are 151 ar3s, so i have no idea weather i like long or short, i just know that they are way to short. i dont think i could hamdle 179+ 6 because even with the ski not feeling like it is that long, it will still have the weight of the whole ski. they are heavy skis to begin with, but we will see. i wsh i could demo instead of just ask, but there is no demo peope visiting this year, i dont think. thanks again for the help!
Aug 25 2008 9:41PM
0 0
profile picture
freeskimccoy
Posts: 736 - Karma: 14
get ep pros ot will probaly be the easiest ski to ski for you, with your size and all.  bents are heavy, and jjs arent really a jibbing ski.  eps tho are a pow jib ski and i think with not pow every day like you will have eps will be the most versatile.



i think this is the first time i reccomended ep's haha
Aug 25 2008 11:42PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
wow you guys are confusing me... my brain hurts. so i SHOULD go for the ep pros? not to long for me? if they sound like a good fit i would be stoked, so anyone else think that eps WOULD be a good choice, is is it one against many?
thanks
Aug 25 2008 11:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
morning bump
i read that the hellbents are4cm longer than it says, so thats 183-6=177
sounds good but heavy
Aug 26 2008 10:15AM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
EPs would be a good ski for you. my friend is 5'10" and skis them fine. and if you are still worried about the length just center mount them. and they are way lighter then bents
Aug 26 2008 10:22AM
0 0
profile picture
Twig
Posts: 6420 - Karma: 60,334
well basically i read this thread loads of times and decided i would reply... you are 5'8 which is ok height for 175-182 but you only weight 100 pounds? .. i would say you will find a 182-183 ski that is 120+ underfoot a fuck load to be throwing around.. i am also 5'8 but 135 pounds and i would probably find the 182 EP and 179 Hellbent quite a big ski.. personally i would go for a 175 JJ i think it will be the exact same height as you.. and at 115 underfoot will float someone that is only 100 pounds in anything.. the only thing it wont do is be good on rails or boxes because you will smash up the edges in no time.. the other two skis will be ok when you grow a bit or put on 40 pounds but at the moment i think they might be very clunky and just feel like you have to fight them.. they will be a lot to spin in the air too.. are you sure you aren't better off waiting for a year or two? i know you probably don't want to hear that but at your height and weight you can ski pow on something much narrower and shorter than those skis.. i have elizaebeths and i find them plenty of ski for pow days but i managed a foot and a half of pow fine on my volkl walls.. bear that in mind and maybe wait a bit.. you could also possibly go for the k2 obsethed?
Aug 26 2008 10:46AM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
eps are only 186
Aug 26 2008 10:59AM
0 0
profile picture
Twig
Posts: 6420 - Karma: 60,334
my bad.. but that only makes my argument stronger
Aug 26 2008 11:23AM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
im having a growth spurt but my weight hasnt caught up with my height, rediculous huh. i need to eat some more cake :)
Aug 26 2008 6:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
^^makes sense what you said, k2 seems to always make heavy skis, so are the obsethed or whatever heavier than the jjs even with the smaller waist. i have a hard time seeing myself ruining the edges on the jjs because im not going to be trying anything crazy while on the boxes or rails... to much weight, if i do any at all. it seems that i should look into the obsethed some more, thanks for the recomendation. how much rocker do they have again? the waiting until i grow thing sounds legit but with the deals on skis i can get, why not try. i would never spend 600+ on skis just to try it, but 300 isn't nearly as big a risk. i just need to get tons of input and look at all my option, and then if nothing is even close to being good il get new park skis or something.
I'm amazed at how chill you guys are, but just tell me if there is nothing more to be said...
thanks again
Aug 26 2008 6:49PM
0 0
profile picture
shortdawg
Posts: 1359 - Karma: 19
I've skied both, and it seems the 09 JJs would be better suited for what you're doing. They can hold more of an edge than the hellos and are still super soft. Not as soft or as rockered as the hellbents, but you wont ever tip dive rocking them. Armada stepped up with this years JJs, do it.
Aug 26 2008 7:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
thanks. after looking at the obsethed, hey have super small amount of rocker huh. jj have more it sounds like. im leening tward jj fo sho and im stoked w/ that. thanks to all
peace
Aug 26 2008 7:20PM
0 0
profile picture
jason...
Posts: 9006 - Karma: 780
jesus christ your skinny, like fuck wow, im your weight and u got 5 inches on me in height, to answer your question id say jj's
Aug 26 2008 7:27PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
i dont look that skinney eather, it weird.
Aug 26 2008 7:49PM
0 0
profile picture
ShadyHillGroup
Posts: 2881 - Karma: 213
i didnt read any of this thread so if its been said disregard it but anyways, I ride hellbents, love them they are sick, i saw the new JJ's today, they are pretty sick looking too, the flex is a little stiff and they didnt have as much rocker in the tail as the hellbents, but the volkl chopsticks looks sick, the shortest size, idk what it is, probably 169-175, would be perfect, they are symmetrical and super light, have a decent amount of rocker and the flex pattern was sick, you should def check them out
Aug 26 2008 9:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
to many good skis these days, huh. chopstocks look sick too, anyone else have a coment. thanks for bringing up another ski bro...

Aug 26 2008 9:56PM
0 0
profile picture
Shlogan
Posts: 4942 - Karma: 430
no dude, the reviews suck and they sound really stiff, idk tho
Aug 26 2008 10:14PM
0 0
profile picture
bucksnorts
Posts: 82 - Karma: 219
I haven't ridden any of the other's, but with my experience I'm 5'9'' 160 with some 189 hellbents and they're a good 15cm longer than my buddies 181 thugs.  They ride smaller than expected.  Its not that heavy of a ski either because of their fiber construction, its just a burly ski which adds a marginal bit of weight.  I was told to get the Marker Jesters for them which would help out with the weight and performance.  This probly dosn't help any, they do come in 169, 179, and189 which gives you some options, yet I'm not sure what you'll be skiing.  If you're gonna be riding some hardpack though I would advise getting something with a little stiffness... Softies will be tough to control and will loose there flex if ridden too much in the park/hardpack...overtime.. All ski companies are doing some pretty sweet things these days so make your own choice and I bet it will work.
Oct 7 2008 11:18AM
0 0
profile picture
phishfood
Posts: 2542 - Karma: 298
nooo chopsticks would manhandle you at your weight, your gonna want something softer. i think ur on the right track with the JJs.
Oct 7 2008 12:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Ryanvdonk
Posts: 12811 - Karma: 1,971
you dont need rocker to butter...sounds like you'd be better of getting a soft normal camber ski.
Oct 7 2008 12:41PM
0 0
profile picture
EClay46
Posts: 2499 - Karma: 69
all right, im going to have to disagree with most of what i read cause i didnt read anything cause im tired. but anyways, i dont think you should buy a rocker ski, you weigh 100 pounds, and for the most part all the rocker skis are really fat long and heavier than a normal ski. at your weight you dont need a rocker at all for float, maybe look into a line elizabeth and then maybe next year or in 2 years your weight will be enough to actually need a rocker and to feel the full benefits.

u are stil the weight of a small kid so u dont need a big ski to float you in powder.
i think elizabeth would be good for you as a powder ski because its pretty light and i dont think you could handle a ski much bigger.
Oct 7 2008 12:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Twig
Posts: 6420 - Karma: 60,334
I agree with the guy above me. Lizzies would be sick for. But if you are set on rocker, and just want a really fun ski to mess about on maybe 169 Bents would be a laugh. Or 175 JJs. Bents are more rockered. 179 Bents are gonna be a lot of ski for a 100 pound guy so i would strike those off. And EP pros are way too big too.
169 Bents (173 real length) or 175 JJs maybe. I don't think you need a rockered ski though.
Oct 7 2008 1:31PM
0 0
profile picture
EClay46
Posts: 2499 - Karma: 69
while i dont think he needs a rocker, and eps might be too big, but i think he could possibly pull them off. while the ski is 186 the running length is much shorter considering the rocker, probably about 120-150cm and they are so rediculously light and soft it should be easy to handle

and i dont know if it was you or someone else but they are different in the hellbent in the way that they are a noodle throughout the ski as opposed to the stiff underfoot soft tips.
but again, at your his(original post) weight a rocker is very unessecary.

however, i cant give any advice on the jj because i havent rode them. and i would take other jj advice with a grain of salt seeing as hardly anyone has ridden them


Oct 7 2008 2:11PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)