Heli Daddy VS Sugar Daddy

**DJMingus** · 04-09-2007, 03:39 PM

As part of my constant ruminations about expanding the quiver a question has come up, especially for those people that have skied both the Heli Daddy and the Sugar Daddy. I'm 6' 1", 175-180 lbs and not a super aggressive or fast skier. This year i picked up some used 180 Heli Daddys from mtnlion and really enjoyed them. I think of these as a good tight tree ski and quite manageable in bumps and crud. Very versatile and easy to ski but responsive and pretty lively. Good backcountry ski for me.

When I read some reviews of 183 Sugar Daddys I am amazed to hear comments to the effect that the Sugars are burly and like to go straight and fast. One reviewer said something like 'if you are a man among boys this is the ski' and I was baffled. Again, I'm no big fast skier.

So are the Helis actually softer? Are mine used enough to be fairly clapped out with the foam core? Are these other poeple crazy? I like my boards enough to pick up a Sugar Daddy some day but I'm assuming they're near the same as my Helis.

Anyone? Cletus?

thanks y'all.

**pechelman** · 04-09-2007, 03:50 PM

ive skied the 180HDs

180HDs have a much softer tip

been a while since i flexed the sugars, but I also thought the tail might have been stiffer. fwiw, I thought the 180 HD tail was as stiff as the tail on my 180 explosiv. seriously.

but yea, let cletus answer
hes been on like every single atomic 99mm ski ever created

**comish** · 04-09-2007, 05:13 PM

It also depends on which Gen Sugars. The one's with the plate were a fair bit beefier, in large part due to the plate. The current one's are a bit softer.

In general, I wouldn't say they are super stiff at all. Not noodles, but on the whole a bit softer than say Exlosives for sure. Somewhere in the middle of the relm. They are torsionally stiffer than a lot of people give them credit for. If you get them over on edge, they definitely hold an edge on hard pack shockingly well. The "feel" is way different to a sandwich ski due to their construction.

Sorry, can't comment on the Sugar's vs Heli's.

**mntlion** · 04-09-2007, 05:54 PM

vintage is everything

sugars with a cross hatch topsheet pattern, and with plates are stiff tip to tail.
Think that this ski was first 183, 173, 163. later, after the flat, twinless version they made in 180, 170, 160, 150, and the next year was a bit softer.

The plateless ones, with XX0cm are still a stiff tail, but softer tip.

all the sugars, heli, tele daddies are all the same dimensions. (99 wasit)

all that is from memory, I really dont have any ideas for sure.

**DJMingus** · 04-10-2007, 10:04 AM

thanks guys. I've been fairly impressed with the edge grip and versatility of the HD since I really bought it for pow. Enough so that I would consider a Sugar for a one ski quiver, although I am really diggin the Mantras for my go-to inbounds ski. The soft tip-to-stiff tail design had me wondering how they would ski but the setup works quite well. BTW I had the opportunity to play with mount points since i got demo binders from mtnlion and ended up at (I think) his preferred mount - 2 cm back from where the heli operation had a sharpie line. I'm at 29.25" from the tail and it is noticeably more balanced than the line at 30".

**Yossarian** · 04-10-2007, 10:31 AM

i can't add anything that hasn't been said already by the others here, but thanks for thinking of me.

I'm starting to ween myself off my Sugar/Tele/Heli/Daddy obsession, but only kinda.

the Heli's + Freerides are my current touring rig,
the Tele's + tele binders are still my current tele rig,
and I have a pair of Janaks sitting in plastic for whenever I break one of those two pairs,
but I did get rid of the Sugars + Sollys as an alpine rig (replaced with Gotamas).

I do think it's a great ski for an all-around quiver of one, do it all ski.
The Atomic construction and stiffness underfoot with a 99mm waist makes it really pretty carvable on all but really hard hardpack (as you've discovered DJ), but the soft forebody and tip makes it great in the pow (I've got lots of "testing" on this front). And since it's relatively light, it make a nice touring board.

It's really a LOT like the BROs, with the exception of the "hinged" (softer front 1/3, stiffer back 2/3s) flex that the Daddies have, vs. the smoother, rounder flex of the BROs.

Anyway, to answer the original question for other readers, no, the more recent Sugar Daddys are not a BURLY ski, they're just stiff underfoot and snappy in the tail. But the front is medium to soft, and you can drive them just fine without being an OGRE. As for the mount, yeah, that makes sense too.

**DJMingus** · 04-10-2007, 10:55 AM

thanks Yoss - like I said originally I was really surprised that some folks thought the Sugar was a burly beast given my experience with the Helis... certainly the HDs are very tractable for a good skier; the stiff tail gives enough pop and stability when needed but the soft tip makes turn initiation easy when things are tight. I would think real big guys might overdrive the Daddys especially if the mount point is forward of mine.

Cheers guys - get some this week!

**hemas** · 04-10-2007, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by DJMingus

thanks Yoss - like I said originally I was really surprised that some folks thought the Sugar was a burly beast given my experience with the Helis... certainly the HDs are very tractable for a good skier; the stiff tail gives enough pop and stability when needed but the soft tip makes turn initiation easy when things are tight. I would think real big guys might overdrive the Daddys especially if the mount point is forward of mine.

Cheers guys - get some this week!

I'm gonna guess that peeps claiming the SD to be "stiff" compare it to some noodlier powstixs.. like Pocket Rocket or M999.

Sure, the SD ain't a steel I-beam, like say Titan Pro or Asteroids/DP's... Or even stiff like Explosive. But they sure as hell ain't soft noodles AK Rocket (old 200's), or Pocket Rockets...

So, all in all... I'd say the SD is more in the category of stiff than soft/noodle... But nowhere near the far end of the stiff-spectrum.

**2skibums** · 02-04-2010, 10:20 PM

Hi
My wife, age 55 / 115lbs, is skiing the SD in 173 and is having a ball - chutes, steeps, crud, pow, trees oh lots of trees and when I'm getting tired I get an "already?".
All this bs about this and that ski - just go out and do it - if you know how to ski just about any of the top skis will do, each has its own character and you'll adapt.

**Roxtar** · 02-05-2010, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by 2skibums

Hi
My wife, age 55 / 115lbs, is skiing the SD in 173 and is having a ball - chutes, steeps, crud, pow, trees oh lots of trees and when I'm getting tired I get an "already?".
All this bs about this and that ski - just go out and do it - if you know how to ski just about any of the top skis will do, each has its own character and you'll adapt.

Since this is your first post and I was taught to respect my elders

I'll just nicely point out that you're responding to a thread that's laid dormant for three years.