K2 ObSETHed Ski

If you live in the West then yes.

STH 12

Brush Wolf,

The ObSETHed would fit your needs if that's what you're asking. I'm 5'11,185 lbs. and have been enjoying the 189 in a variety of conditions- powder, hardpack, slush, etc. I really like the stability and speed of the 189 but if you wanted to make more turns through trees or a lot of jump turns down tight chutes then you might want the 179. I've never skied the 179 but I think it's plenty of ski for even taller people- I just talked to a big, tall Squaw Valley ski patroller last weekend who liked the 179 just fine. I think it probably comes down to a matter of how much turning you want to do. More turns, go with the 179, less turns 189. I find that the 189 makes quick turns just fine though.

I mount at plus 4. I would also say depends on your boot size as well if you have ever mounted a ski closer to ski center.

Thanks Wally. I'll try and demo the Influence and obSethed next time I go up, and maybe throw in one of the others if I have time.

Hey GenTso,

So, looking for the jack of all trades. All 4 you mentioned are good options depending on the amount of park that you do. If you are doing only a bit of park and no pipe, the Line Influence would be best followed by the obSETHed. If you plan on parking and piping it up more, then I would slide more toward the Kung Fujas and the TST.

http://www.backcountry.com/salomon-n-sth-16-steel-ski-binding

yes it will work I use a 115 with the above link

Bending the brakes on a 115mm binding to fit the 120mm ski should be ok.

The width and rocker. The obsethed has more of both and is more of a soft snow ski.

It should be mentioned that K2 skis are notoriously measured shorter than they are, don't know if that is true for this ski though.

I totally agree with your assessment. You'll have way more stability at speed on the 189s but may find your maneuverability compromised at that length in really tight trees. If you already have a straight line charger in your quiver then grab the 179s for the trees.

Right around 4,400 grams per pair.

In one of your answers you say it will take you a little bit of time to change your style of mogul skiing.

What are you referring to?

If you want to make more turns get the 169, if not 179.

Hey Jeff and Seth,

Thanks for the feedback - maybe I should emphasize that I live in Greenland (no trees) and was thinking that I should opt for the 189 over 179 (wish that there was something in between). My normal ski for ordinary skitouring are generally between 178-181 (like K2 Wayback or Coomback), so I was thinking that if I wanted to get a more powder specific/big mountain type ski, with powder rocker and twintips, that I should get the 189 to increase the snow contact (compared to the 179, which would actually be shorter than my ordinary touring (not necessarily powder specific) skis?

Once again, thanks for Your help so far.
-Inooraq

I agree with what jeff says, 179.

It depends on what you want to do, but personally, I'd go with the 179 unless you are only into big, open lines. I am 5'7, 150 and have gone through a variety of ski lengths in the past two years. For my style of skiing aggressive lines including trees the mid to high 170s work best for me. Anything above 180, especially over 185 just feels cumbersome and slower to put on edge. Good luck!

The older ones are great for groomers with their regular camber. The new models are much more playful and suited for deep snow and off piste skiing. I like to have both! if anything turn your old pair into touring skis. they are totally different so you could enjoy having a quiver of skis to choose from given the conditions.

179

check out the k2 kung fujas instead.

short answer, No
although these skis perform well on the groomers, they are not comparable to an all mountain ski with a traditional camber and no rocker, you should look into a ski with no rocker and maybe around 100 waist or less, sounds like 90% of your skiing is on groomers, these skis are more 70% powder 30% other

No, the Kung fujas would be better.

J Berg - If you're referring to the 2010/2011 ski (i.e. last year's model) which the same chassis as the current 2011/2012, then this will be applicable... After demoing these skis on a few occasions (knee deep to groomers) I found the cherry mounting spot to be +3 to +5.5, which is consistent with Seth's +4 location. (I ended up mounting mine at +5). You'll find much more control being more centered in the rocker (which is aggressive) without sacrificing much in the way of floatation. The forward mount, in my experience, dampened up the ski and provides a great example of why hand-flexing is misleading, as well as quickened up the skis and provided a better landing platform for airs, which are all big positives. This board was made to be forward mounted as even the top sheet spacing in the graphics suggests.

If you buy these go with seth's recommondation. If you want the playful ski these are fun but check out the bentchetler. The 'chets are funner and better for play since they are less directional have more tail rocker and I believe they are lighter. Both a fun skis you couldn't go wrong with either but the 'chets are some sick skis for play.

+4 to +6, true center is +7

I somewhat agree. I say you get the 169 and mount them a little forward of traditional. I always ride the Obsethed -2 from core center which I believe is about +5 anyway. The way the ski is designed puts the sidecut nearer to the center of the ski which is where you want to be to have as much control as possible. If the place you demoed these skis mounted them with schizo's then you should move them to +5 and try them again.

I think if you did the 179s at +5 then you will have a ton of tail. The 169 is probably perfect for you.

Agree with Hayden. I typically ride 179 and I've got 15lbs on you

ive just been told different things from different people about which length to get with the rocker tip/tail so im trying to get multiple opinions.

179

189. hiking with theses skis is not exactly fun unless you take lots of breaks but the ride down will make the weight worth it(unless the like isn't long or you are using a pack)

Im 5'11 about 170 and ski the 189. i'd roll with that size for sure. hope that helps

well i have two pairs of marker jesters and think they are fantastic.

sth 16 or deadbolt 18's. Don't buy markers cause they look cool those bindings can suck.

Salomon STH

thanks. you have any Biding suggestions ?

189 would be a good choice for you. I'm the same height and weight as you, and I'd prefer the longer ski since there is such dramatic early rise and such a short running length with these. You'll appreciate the extra length in the powder, and it won't be noticed on any hard pack you may encounter. If it were getting into the 193+ range, then I'd give it a second guess, but a 179 would seem pretty short for you or me.

The tips flop around a lot on groomers but after you get used of the flap, you wont notice it. They will hold an edge and handle speed well unless you take them on small bumps. Larger moguls work to just adjust your style for them.

They will hold an edge on about anything except glare ice. They are chattery at high speeds when the runs aren't soft, but when you have them on edge, they'll grab.

with the amount of tip rocker is does great in the crud, never heard of "chatter" in crud, thats a hard pack term to me.

I would say it depends what kind of terrain you will be mostly skiing. More wide open terrain 189, tree skiing 179.

Its too bad theres no middle ground with this ski something like a 184 but my suggestion would to be with the 189. There is enough rocker on this that it will feel shorter than a true 189. Whenever i've skied something around 189 in powder I personally don't feel a huge difference in turning, on the hard pack im sure it will be a litte more difficult but I think the 189 will handle the long turns and the tight turns. In any size of this ski you will have to compromise a little.

Most of the time I ski with them out and don't have any issues.

Its not going to make much difference in your skiing... you may ust build up some snow and ice in the holes so if that doesnt bother you dont bother with them

I've seen a few people on the fujas but the people on the obseths love them and are allways tearing it up. Most of the people with the obseths have hammerheads.

You're good to go, I've seen quite a few people ripping these on tele binders, and they love them. If you're looking for something lighter and more versatile, then you should definitely go with the fujas'. If you're looking for a fat tele-board to do the same thing you're doing with these boards with your alpine binders, then get these again.

well this ski is a bit fatter and has the early rise tip and tail so it it basically a 100% powder ski
The Fujas is a bit narrower and doesnt have tail rise so you will find yourself with more control on chop or groom
as far as for tele you will love them both its just a matter of where you want to ride them All day deep Pow go ObSETHed Pow in the morning and ride out the day on one set of skis go Fujas

According to K2's website they're available now.

Inventory questions tend to sit idle on the item page for what seems like forever. Click on the gray "Chat Now" box on the upper right of the page; a customer service rep will be able to answer your question immediately. Good luck.

I ski my pontoons in moguls and i can turn. I have seen people take their obsetheds in the moguls and they can turn. It can be a bit of a workout to ski these in bumps so keep that in mind.

I ski them in Moguls and you need to change your style of skiing them a bit, due to width and rocker, after a bit you won't notice it as much as the first time.

With these I'll just line it down.