# Nordica Hell and Back ........considering these skis.....size?



## deadheadskier (May 4, 2014)

I'm 5'8" and my weight tends to vary in the 190-200# range.

Considering picking up a set of Hell and Backs, but I'm a little torn on what size.

On the one hand, I'm short and like to ski a fair amount of bumps.  With that, the 177 seems like an appropriate size.  I'm guessing the 177 would be a little quicker in tight trees as well. 

On the other hand, these skis would be the widest ski in my quiver (outside of a very old set of beat Rossi powder boards), so when there's fresh, this ski would be what I'd be using.  So, the added length and surface area in theory would offer me a bit more float.

Several of you have skied with me over the years and know my style of skiing and ability level.  

What do people think?  177 or 185?


----------



## Savemeasammy (May 5, 2014)

177.  The reality of living in New England is that when we have powder, it is tracked out by noon - and there aren't nearly as many powder days as we would like!  Probably most of your powder skiing is going to be done in the trees...  I would get the length you are comfortable on.  If you are a good enough skier, you can make the ski do what you need it to do.  It sounds like a soft ski, so I would be inclined to think that the width and rocker will be enough to make it enjoyable in the powder.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## xwhaler (May 5, 2014)

I'd agree on the 177.....you could easily handle the 185 but I think the 177 will be a bit more versatile.


----------



## Puck it (May 5, 2014)

Do not buy the 185. They do not ski short like I said in my text. Steve at the SKi Haus turned on to these after Head ruined the Monster series. He is over 6' and skied the 177's. Nordica is replacing the H&B series with NRGy skis.  They have added metal to them.  He skied them this year and did not like them like as much as the H&B's. He is now on White Doctor's. A new line that he is carrying next year from France.


----------



## Edd (May 5, 2014)

I agree on the 177. 


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## deadheadskier (May 5, 2014)

Going with the 177


but......the Vagabonds.  Want something with a bit more deep snow capability than the Helens.  $349 and free shipping for a set of Blems through Start Haus.


----------



## yeggous (May 5, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Going with the 177
> 
> 
> but......the Vagabonds.  Want something with a bit more deep snow capability than the Helens.  $349 and free shipping for a set of Blems through Start Haus.



I've heard good things about the Vag. Very light core. Yet they are getting discontinued after one year.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Puck it (May 5, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Going with the 177
> 
> 
> but......the Vagabonds.  Want something with a bit more deep snow capability than the Helens.  $349 and free shipping for a set of Blems through Start Haus.  [/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## deadheadskier (May 5, 2014)

Thanks Puckewok

I think I'll be happier with the Vag than the Helen's for their intended purpose.


----------



## mishka (May 5, 2014)

IIRC you have no problem to run 185's


----------



## deadheadskier (May 5, 2014)

:lol:

I had contacted Customer Service for Mad Russian Designs and they didn't have any factory blemishes for immediate sale.


----------



## mishka (May 5, 2014)

tell me about it.... I been asking them for blemished skis for long time but nooooo they never have any


----------



## deadheadskier (May 5, 2014)

:lol:


----------



## Puck it (May 6, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Thanks Puckewok
> 
> I think I'll be happier with the Vag than the Helen's for their intended purpose.



I agree.


----------



## mishka (May 12, 2014)

What binding are you  getting? 
 I suggest adjustable kind or demo. This way you can adjust position on the skis.  10 to 15 mm sometimes make world of difference in ski performance


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2014)

mishka said:


> What binding are you  getting?
> I suggest adjustable kind or demo. This way you can adjust position on the skis.  10 to 15 mm sometimes make world of difference in ski performance



I've got a set of Duke's that I'll be throwing on them.  not sure which mounting point I'll use yet.  Probably factory recommended.


----------



## mishka (May 12, 2014)

That's exactly my point. I believe, for best results, binding need to be moved depends conditions. Forward on the groomer/hard pack. Back on the soft snow..... Factory recommended


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2014)

I've always been fine with a neutral mounting point.  I feel like I can adjust my weight back or forward enough depending on the conditions.  And the financial reality is I've got a set of Duke's sitting on a set of skis that I never liked and have maybe 10 days of use.  Doesn't make sense for me to buy new bindings given I have a basically new pair in hand that will offer touring capability should I ever choose to get off my ass again and actually skin some terrain.  The light weight of the Vagabond with the touring capability of the Duke's seems like a good combo to me.


----------



## Cannonball (May 13, 2014)

mishka said:


> What binding are you  getting?
> I suggest adjustable kind or demo. This way you can adjust position on the skis.  10 to 15 mm sometimes make world of difference in ski performance



I have to disagree.  1/2" of difference in mounting location on a 6' long ski is virtually imperceptible.  

Demo bindings are great for sharing skis,  but that's about it.  I can't imagine anyone would adjust their bindings by 15mm based on conditions (except at the highest levels of competition).


----------



## Puck it (May 13, 2014)

I have always mounted neutral too.


----------



## mishka (May 13, 2014)

What do you mean neutral position?


----------



## Puck it (May 13, 2014)

mishka said:


> What do you mean neutral position?



Center position.  Marked by the factory


----------



## mishka (May 13, 2014)

then it's a good question how factory determine what is Marked position? 

I assuming you never tried to experiment with  range of +2 --2cm from the mark?

All my factory made skis have demo bindings and on ALL of them I moved my position +2 to 3 cm even purchased new  Fisher watea94( now for sale obviously) I bought new marker griffon demo so position can be adjusted  I simply couldn't skis them on first day at neutral position.

I'm not saying there is significant difference.... it might be no difference at all for someone. For me there are noticeable difference in ski performance.
I think with binding position skier should have choice to experiment and factory marked spot should be more in line of guidelines not the rules


----------



## deadheadskier (May 13, 2014)

I'm sure there's some merit to experimenting with binding position.  I've never owned a set of demo bindings to give it a shot and truthfully have only demo'd a few skis over the years and I never really gave much thought to moving the binding position.

Might be something to consider when I'm in need of purchasing bindings again some day.  I just can't justify the expense right now when I've got a set of 10 days used $300 bindings that have basically been collecting dust for three years.


----------



## Cannonball (May 13, 2014)

mishka said:


> then it's a good question how factory determine what is Marked position?
> 
> I assuming you never tried to experiment with  range of +2 --2cm from the mark?
> 
> ...



Yes, factory marked spot is absolutely a guideline and not a rule.  There are a million ski forum threads about where to mount your bindings on a particular model of skis.  Mostly it comes down to the type of skier you are and what you want to do with your skis.  But moving your bindings 1 to 2cm every time the conditions change is pretty much irrelevant and WAY more trouble than most people want to deal with.

If someone is that sensitive to their ski performance in different conditions they are more likely to have a 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th) pair of skis than they are to move their binding a few cm.  Why move a binding 2cm on a powder ski to better handle groomers, when you'd have a much better result by just switching to a groomer ski? 


This discussion just made me think of a great new gimmick to sell....Ski Extenders!!  These would be little caps you could put on your tips to make your skis longer or shorter based on conditions.  "Are the glades closed and you are stuck on the groomers?  Wishing you had a longer ski?  Add Ski Extenders© and turn those 179s into 182s.  The ladies will love your extra length and you will feel the performance in ever turn!" 
note: Ski Extenders© have not been tested by the PSIA and have not been shown to have any tangible impact on your actual ski performance or the impression of 'the ladies'


----------



## JDMRoma (May 13, 2014)

I had the Griffon Schizo's on my Gotama's and Soul 7s, Had both skis mounted in the "0" position and rode both skis in the +10 position. the Schizo adjusts +30 forward from center and -30. I didn't really play too much but did run the Gotama's at -10 and they felt a little squirrel-ly at speed....but could have been the -10 and the full rocker ski.

So I guess I'm in the camp of......mounting position does make a difference and its nice to be able to adjust.Although I wouldn't see myself changing it per run, maybe by the day :0

Just my $.02


----------



## mishka (May 13, 2014)

JDMRoma said:


> So I guess I'm in the camp of......mounting position does make a difference and its nice to be able to adjust.Although I wouldn't see myself changing it per run, maybe by the day :0
> 
> Just my $.02



that's exactly my point. Good option to have.  

I didn't know how often  adjustment need to be done. In my personal experience, this season on MR86, I did only twice first day on them in October and last Friday..... First time needed to go back on binding position.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 13, 2014)

You know, somewhat of a similar discussion is ski flex adjusting bindings.  My daily drivers the past three years have been Fischer Motive 84 that has an integrated binding with three flex adjustments that are definitely noticeable with the ski.  I ski the medium/neutral flex 75% of the time, but on hard snow days when I know I won't be skiing any bumps, I crank it to the stiff setting.  Spring time or after storms when I know bumps will be much more prevalent, I adjust them to the soft setting.   For me, the difference in the skis performance across the three flex settings is very noticeable.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 18, 2015)

DHS, did you buy those Vagabonds? if so what's your thoughts on them?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 18, 2015)

Absolutely love them.  Great edge hold for a ski its size, quick edge to edge for the size as well.  Bust through crud great.  A little cumbersome in the bumps, but that's to be expected for a 107 waist ski.


----------



## prsboogie (Jan 18, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> This discussion just made me think of a great new gimmick to sell....Ski Extenders!!  These would be little caps you could put on your tips to make your skis longer or shorter based on conditions.  "Are the glades closed and you are stuck on the groomers?  Wishing you had a longer ski?  Add Ski Extenders© and turn those 179s into 182s.  The ladies will love your extra length and you will feel the performance in ever turn!"
> note: Ski Extenders© have not been tested by the PSIA and have not been shown to have any tangible impact on your actual ski performance or the impression of 'the ladies'



Wow that just made me laugh!!


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 18, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Absolutely love them.  Great edge hold for a ski its size, quick edge to edge for the size as well.  Bust through crud great.  A little cumbersome in the bumps, but that's to be expected for a 107 waist ski.



Cool ... thanks for the reply. Should be good out west in big soft bumps. You got 177?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 18, 2015)

Yes, but actual length is more like 181.   The 185s I'm told are close to 190


----------



## Puck it (Jan 18, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Yes, but actual length is more like 181.   The 185s I'm told are close to 190


Yes the do fell longer than 177.


----------

