Seth or SFB? Which one is right for me?

psychkub

psychkub

Active member
Ok, I know the comparison is kind of stretch seeing as the dimensions are completely different, but I'm looking for a super fun ski that I'll be able to butter like nothing everywhere (groomers, park, and BC) for next season (seein as shit is going on sale soon). I already have some chronic wides for a park ski, and some THA 187s for charging. The Seth seems like it would be a good choice to fill in the gap for my quiver, but I'm really interested in the SFBs because I ski my THAs in the park and like the added width, they're just a tad too stiff for my tastes. Imma be moving up to Washington in June, so I'll prolly be riding Baker and Snoqualmie next season. I thought about the Made'Ns but the dimensions are too much like my THA 187s, so they're out of the question.

As for stats, I'm 6'2" 230-240lbs (it varies)

Is there anyone out there who has ridden both and can give me an objective reason as to which one is better? Thanks!
 
what's the dimensions on the hellbents?? sorry if this counts as thread jacking... but in searchbar there wasn't much in the way for hellbent threads and I dont wanna filter through all the zillion pages in the 08 shit thread.
 
150-122-141; Sounds pretty massive. I'm still a bit skeptical about the rocker, but I think my search has been increased to those three skis... c'mon, ya'll you're supposed to help me narrow down my choic, not add on to it!
 
check out the hellbents, made'ns, and the gun for a wide but soft ski. i myself halfway think i love the SFB, then the other half thinks its a pointless ski for what most normal people ski. seems to me if your looking for a all mountain ski (you have a park and charging ski) the Seth will be much better. havnt ridden the SFB though.
 
out of those two, the SFB. but might i suggest the arv. those are supposed to pretty buttery soft
 
The Seth is like... big mountain AK worthy ski. So that's definitely not what you're looking for.
 
I've flexed both skis at the local shop, but I've not yet ridden either because there's no demo program here in Big Bear... Both seem to be soft skis, despite for whatever they were designed for (seth - big mountain & bacons - all mountain/bc jib ski). Do you think I wouldn't be able to handle the Seth or is the design not really what I'm looking for?
 
while I've heard nothing but good things about Surface, I dunno if that's what I'm looking for... any idea on what the flex of the ski is? 179 might be a tad too short too. As it is, the 182cm the SFB comes for is a stretch for someone my size.
 
hellbents are dope. i rode them a couple of weeks ago and i loved them. they actually handle well on hardpack and they absolutely shred powder. sooo fun to blast through the trees. i'd say get those for sure over seths or sfbs.
 
right now i have scratch bc's and all i dream of is a nice pair of lizzies or bacons, especially if you want something to jib on. sooo sick i mean come on just go to the line page and watch them just murder!
 
dude your huge. i have SFB, but i think you might overpower them a little. they are great for me and i weigh 145. Seth would probably be a good choice. I rode next years Seth and it rides softer in tips and tails cause of the minirocker. I'd go with them.
 
That's kind of what I was thinking... I guess giving the whole rockered ski concept a try would be fun. Like I said, I'm only looking for a fun ski to fool around, butter and hit a couple of park jumps... no rails. While the SFBs have nice dimensions, I could probably get that from the Hellbents. I didn't even consider next year's seth's with their small rocker in the tips, since I was only considering this year's skis. I might have to save up a bit more and toss it it up between next year's Seth's and the Hellbents. Thanks everyone for their help.
 
Yeah, those are supposed to be the most buttery skis ever, I might have to get a pair next year just cause they look so fun for powder jibbing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top