Member of the Month

JalmarKalmar
April, 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!

Armada JJ or ON3P Jeffrey

profile picture
manny.ester
Posts: 708 - Karma: 141

Deciding between these two. (185JJ/186Jeffrey)

First of all, some stats: I am 5'10, 170lbs, skiing in BC (the province, not backcountry), first time i'm adding a second ski to my quiver. I currently have a pair of Moment Rockers as my go to park ski, I want a second ski for variable snow days where I won't be riding park. Any sort of days with 4" or more of fresh snow or just choppy snow.

Looking for a real good comparison between these two. Dimensions are similar, would like to know what the effective edge is on the JJ's, and I realized that the turn radius' of the skis differs by 10m, not sure how much that's gonna make a difference.

Will be mounting with STH14's.

Aug 31 2011 10:12PM
0 0
profile picture
BWalmer
Posts: 9141 - Karma: 12,883
They also have a waist difference of 7mm (Jeffery is 108 underfoot, while the JJ is 115 underfoot). So, I'd say if you plan on using them for just chop and some mild powder then the Jeffery, but if you plan on skiing anything more than say knee deep go with the JJ.
Aug 31 2011 10:24PM
0 0
profile picture
manny.ester
Posts: 708 - Karma: 141
The waist difference is not a huge deal to me, the JJ's are still lighter than the Jeffrey's... I will be skiing anything from 4" up so it could be up to knee deep if the season is good
Aug 31 2011 10:27PM
0 0
profile picture
BWalmer
Posts: 9141 - Karma: 12,883
To be honest, you really can't go wrong either way then. If you think you'll mostly be skiing cruisers with some chop or pow in them, then go with the Jeffery, the JJ is really more of a pow ski that won't have as much edge to edge on groomers.
Aug 31 2011 10:34PM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
The Jeffrey will do you good for sure, but if you have a ski for hardpack, the 181 Caylor Lite might be a better pick for chop/pow. At 120 underfoot, its a bit wider than even the JJ, but its stable as hell, runs over anything that will try to knock it around, and once you get used to it, can ski groomers decently - not as well as the Jeffrey, just due to the increased rocker compared to that ski, but it can hack it. I took the 191's up to T-line week before last, and even center mounted, they feel big, but controllable.

Sparknotes, Jeffrey for a 75/25 mix of crud/powder, Caylor for 25/75 crud/powder.
Aug 31 2011 10:42PM
0 0
profile picture
Chompo.
Posts: 4952 - Karma: 88
I LOVE MY JJ's. They are the favorite skis i have ever owned. You can use them for anything and everything
Aug 31 2011 10:44PM
0 0
profile picture
benk
Posts: 1342 - Karma: 988
I can only vouch for the Caylors (Jefferey's big brother) but they do cut through anything..and in this heavy PNW snow, it makes skiing chopped up powder a dream. I don't think you can go wrong with any ski though
Aug 31 2011 11:25PM
0 0
profile picture
manny.ester
Posts: 708 - Karma: 141
How long is the rocker on the JJs? I know the Jeffrey rocker is about 400mm tip and tail, so how would the JJ compare?
Sep 1 2011 12:27AM
0 0
profile picture
armada802
Posts: 68 - Karma: 11
On3p does there rocker different than every other company, but Armada doesnt give rocker stats. That being said the jjs have almost identical rocker to the bentchetler, which has 20mm high and 20cm deep. The JJs have less rocker but they will float considerably better, my pick would be for the JJ
Sep 1 2011 12:20PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
I love the JJs and have owned them twice, and have all the time in the world for Armada, but decided to go for the Jeffrey on the basis of trusting the build construction, and wanting to support On3p as a company. I also own Caylors and a thinner, lighter version of that ski is pretty much my ideal of the "every day" stick. Can't go wrong either way, but the fact that Scott and Rowen know exactly whose skis they're building while they're building them is huge in my estimation, they know their customers individually and deal with them personally, and the quality of the product and attention to detail that goes into it reflects that 100%. For the ski you get at the end of the day and what's done to make it (i.e the production volume re: materials cost, overhead of running a company like that) the price is ludicrously cheap.
Sep 1 2011 1:24PM
0 0
profile picture
manny.ester
Posts: 708 - Karma: 141
Bumping one last time before I'll make my decision. Any opinions or feedback is appreciated!

How will these compare on backcountry kickers?
Sep 2 2011 12:27PM
0 0
profile picture
bibs_skibum
Posts: 4462 - Karma: 449
i owned jjs for a couple of seasons and demoed jeffereys for a couple of days in the beartooths this summer.

i far far far prefer the jeffery! i felt like it was a much more stable ski and i felt the jj was far too skittish, especially in crud. it bounces and deflects rather than cutting or plowing.

If i could only own 1 ski it would be the on3p jeffery. hands down
Sep 2 2011 1:16PM
0 0
profile picture
manny.ester
Posts: 708 - Karma: 141
ok thanks a lot! good to have someone who has skiied both of these! im leaning towards the jeffrey now, especially because we generally get heavier pow here in BC and lots of crud
Sep 2 2011 3:14PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
This, I don't like the more heavily tapered JJ. I feel like it's not conducive to being playful in soft snow, which is what I look for in soft snow skis.
Sep 5 2011 4:54AM
0 0
profile picture
manny.ester
Posts: 708 - Karma: 141
Thanks for all the input! I ordered some 186 Jeffrey's, stoked to try them out!
Sep 5 2011 12:50PM
0 0
profile picture
SKI.ING
Posts: 2695 - Karma: 2,535
^^ But where do you draw the line of the skier being unable to drive the ski in variable snow, versus the ski being deflected around? I think nowadays people look for technology to do it all for them, and then discount the ski when something isn't easy. Obviously if a powder ski sinks in powder then its a bad ski. But chop is usually not the funnest either way.
Sep 5 2011 1:17PM
0 0
profile picture
RudyGarmisch
Posts: 25443 - Karma: 13,844
OG Seth Pistols were what, 96 underfoot? They sank. And Seth was hucking 90' backflips and skiing waist deep pow on them. Theres totally an effect of just being a good skier, but with the diversity of skis out there now, its all about matching up the right characteristics to what you like in a ski. Everything has tradeoffs, just choose what sounds fun!
Sep 5 2011 1:23PM
0 0
profile picture
mountainviper
Posts: 1931 - Karma: -3
Came into this late but I'm glad you went with the on3ps....I can't express how cool it is that these guys are in the forums pretty much daily and kickin out advice on stuff that may not even be their product.....if I didn't get a hook up on my current skis I would have absolutely bought on3ps this year...I've heard nothin but good stuff....and on that note if any of you guys read this and know when or where I can demo a pair this season def PM me with the deets!
Sep 5 2011 2:27PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
There will be a new website dropping Oct 1st, and there will be a demo tour section of the website that will stay updated with dates and locations - also, if you're ever in Portland, you can stop by the factory and grab a pair to take up to Hood for a couple days!
Sep 5 2011 2:57PM
0 0
profile picture
mountainviper
Posts: 1931 - Karma: -3
That's awesome thanks for the info....don't have portland on the plans for this season but I have this one friend with a place there.....hmmm....so who knows....but as far as your demo tour planning I'd def put special focus on the east coast....I'd heard of and was aware of on3p but ya never see them out here....I think maybe an extra few stops out here would do leaps and bounds for your brand awareness ya know?
Sep 5 2011 3:39PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
I would rather have a ski that performs exactly how I want it to in untracked than a ski that performs ok in untracked and ok in chop. And that's able to charge hard, but still playful and easy to butter and smear when I want too. I don't feel like I can ski like that on skis with a lot of taper in the tips and tails.

I ski Caylors (and before that, hellbents) every day it's soft, and wouldn't want to ever ski a ski with a reversed sidecut profile anywhere. It just feels wrong to me.
Sep 7 2011 5:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.BOYD
Posts: 215 - Karma: 57
Which one's do you guys think would be better for an AT set up?
Sep 13 2011 1:04AM
0 0
profile picture
benk
Posts: 1342 - Karma: 988
ON3P
Sep 13 2011 1:39AM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
What are the considerations? what are you looking for in a ski you want to set up as an AT ski?

I don't like AT bindings, but they will work on either ski. It really comes down to which of the two you prefer based on how they ski.
Sep 13 2011 3:18AM
0 0
profile picture
benk
Posts: 1342 - Karma: 988
I'll elaborate a little...I've toured on a range of skis, from traditional camber 85mm waist to Moment Comi's and the Caylors have been my favorite to tour on. I tour quite a lot on the Billy Goats as well but enjoy the Caylor's more because of the continuous rocker. I've noticed camber underfoot can tend to lift the ski off the skin track while the rocker on the Caylor or Jeffrey allows the ski to remain in it's natural position which provides for a great purchase while skinning.  It's a small detail but when you're on a steep skin track, the smallest slip can be pretty aggravating. I've also enjoyed how the rocker on the Caylor breaks trail as well.
Sep 13 2011 3:40AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)