Czar or JJ

seth3030

seth3030

Member
so i have been looking for some pow/ all mountain skis and have come down to these skis, i have heard that the jj are short even though they are said to be a 185 and i have not heard if the czars are true to the 182 measurement or not, i just wish they made the czars in like a 185 or 188 because i am 6'3 and would like a little bigger ski, thoughts?
 
i was undecided betweeen the car and another ski too, went with the 4 frnt cuz i had a better deal on but the czar looked fukin dope! heard alot of good things about it.
 
ha ha yes it is given that both skis are gonna be sick but i need some help as to which one is more burley and can stand high speed/ weight cause i am pretty aggressive
 
Alright, here is a rundown for you...
The Czar is a good ski. It is stiff throughout the ski that rips on the groomers, and I am sure does fine in the powder (haven't ridden it there). It only has rocker in the tip and the rocker is not nearly as pronounced as something like the Hellbent/EP/JJ (all have roughly the same rocker). From what I remember it is about half...
The JP vs Julien was by far my favorite ski to ride last year. It was very versatile, quick turning, able to play around with, but still plenty stiff to blast through crud. This ski is stiff underfoot especially, but softens up in the tip and the tail. It has a full rocker in both the tip and the tail. Feel free to look in my sig for a more full JJ review.
I personally think that the JJ is a superior ski. I absolutely loved riding it. Let me know if you have any questions at all.
Cheers,Ryan
 
im 5'10 5'11 ish and the jj's are like an inch or two over my head if that helps at all with height, (185's)
 
tip to tip (straight across) i measured the JJs to be 183cm long, there is alittle more rockered tip than tail. if youve got any questions about them (other than how they ride, no snow around here yet) give me a pm. i spent way too long trying to figure out where to mount them. marked out center of the running surface, true center and stuff. can get pictures of them if theres interest too.
 
he guys thanks, one more question it seems that the k2 seth's latley have kinda fallen off the hot list of skis is this years any better should i consider them in this line up as well?
 
I think there are quite a few people buying them. Seth's skis have quite the following. I just don't see them as being as revolutionary as something like the JJ or czar. You could consider them, but I wouldn't. Go with either the czar or the JP and you will be happy.
 
I'm 6'0" and around 200 lbs. I just picked up the czar in the 82. Haven't skied them yet, missed the demo day on all the new stuff at the end of the year last year, but my buddy was there and is a very good, aggressive skier. He said that he was surprised by them, being that he skied them on hardpack and still liked them. They have a good stiff tail and are gonna be far more versatile than the JP. If ur aggresive you should like them all the way around even with their bomber 44.7m radius. Let me know how it goes
 
The new Seths are completely different though.

But ya, I agree here. I think this year it's all about these skis:

JJ's

Bibby

Bacon (unrockered Bibby)

Bents

 
I mean for most of people on ns. Cause most people on here want soft fattys and most people want it with rocker.

The Seths would be better for charging.
 
yeah i think the seths are what i want cause i want a stiff charger ski not just a huge soft ski for just pow
 
just looking at this thread title.

jj for the win.

the czar is barely even rockered, the jj is aparently the bst ski armada has made to date.
 
id go jj, its not a soft ski by any means. they look... super dope.

the czars were ok, i liked them, but they didnt blow me away. not as much rocker as i expected, sufficiently stiff to be really versatile, and woodcored (hurray!).

that being said, the czars really feel like a tradtional ski, so if thats what you're looking for, id lean there, something a bit more surfy? go with the jjs.
 
I know this question is not about the thread title, but I was wonderingg if the Bacons measured longer or shorter than their supposed 182 length? Anyone measured them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top