Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 59
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    42

    J Skis Discussion

    Just wanted to start a thread for J skis.

    Anyone have a lot of experience with theses skis?

    I know the person who made them was with line and boasts that on the website, but i've heard and seen many negative reviews about line skis with them breaking and blowing out rails. Actually had a friend whos back half of his ski snap while going down a run which caused him to go off the run and hit a tree causing him serious injuries


    Mostly interested in their masterblaster and allplay but would like to open up a discussion about anything related to J Skis, being a newer ski company I don't know much about.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    8
    I'm interested in the masterblaster as well! Specifically anyone's experience with the 187cm length.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    469
    Same same. Blister wrote some very favorable reviews of the Masterblaster and the Metal. The new Vacation looks like a great option for a softer 50/50 park/all-mountain ski for Park City too. Any real world TGR beta on any of these skis is appreciated!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    4,646
    The guy who created Line created J -- Jason Levinthal. He's a user on these forums occassionally.

    J Skis are made in Canada at Utopie. Not where line skis are made. But they are a solid manufacturer.

    I've only skied the Metal but I like it. It's heavy, pretty damp, but not so stiff that it needed to rage to come alive.

    I like that they are using thick edges and base material, trumped only by On3p.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    3,814
    Newschoolers?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    895
    Pretty sure I actually named the masterblaster on a chair ride with a friend of JLevs.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,801
    masterblaster was the name given to "older and better" skier groups in the snowblaster program at meadows in the late 80's. The younger and slower kids were referred to as "slowbastards".

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,724
    I picked up the 187cm Masterblasters last spring. I've only had maybe a half dozen days on them, generally in spring conditions. I picked them up because I wanted an all-mountain-ish ski that performed well in leaner Sierra conditions. I also wanted them to be playful like my old 2006/07 Line Prophet 100s, which were great skis. The Masterblaster seemed to best fit the bill, so I did something I never do otherwise: I paid full price for them.

    So far, I like them, but I don't love them. It's fairly easy to initiate a turn but takes more effort to really carve through a turn. They tend to want to make shallow S-turns 's and not deep S-turn's. So, they are not as easy to ski or playful as my old Prophets were. They are, however, stable at speed and hold a decent edge on icy groomers, but won't be mistaken for carving skis. They are heavy and excel in busting through slop and crud. Build quality looks great.

    I wonder if a size down would have been more playful and fun. (For the record, I'm 6', about 180-185 in ski season, and usually ski longer skis.) Again, they are good skis, but the verdict is still out on whether they are great. It's possible that with more time, I'll get used to the Masterblasters and end up loving them.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    338
    I own two pair's of J skis. The masterblasters and whip it's. The mastersblasters are insanely fun and damp.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20190427_125745_480.jpg 
Views:	132 
Size:	1.60 MB 
ID:	294354
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20170304_100937.jpg 
Views:	151 
Size:	1.40 MB 
ID:	294355

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by fatnslow View Post
    masterblaster was the name given to "older and better" skier groups in the snowblaster program at meadows in the late 80's. The younger and slower kids were referred to as "slowbastards".
    Completely off topic, but I can’t help but read your user name and your response, and then wonder how is it that no company has created a powder ski named the “Fat Bastard” already. I want mine with bag pipe and kilt plaid top sheets

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Driving2VT
    Posts
    3,789

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by Doremite View Post
    Ha!! I should’ve known better...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by AKbruin View Post
    I picked up the 187cm Masterblasters last spring. I've only had maybe a half dozen days on them, generally in spring conditions. I picked them up because I wanted an all-mountain-ish ski that performed well in leaner Sierra conditions. I also wanted them to be playful like my old 2006/07 Line Prophet 100s, which were great skis. The Masterblaster seemed to best fit the bill, so I did something I never do otherwise: I paid full price for them.

    So far, I like them, but I don't love them. It's fairly easy to initiate a turn but takes more effort to really carve through a turn. They tend to want to make shallow S-turns 's and not deep S-turn's. So, they are not as easy to ski or playful as my old Prophets were. They are, however, stable at speed and hold a decent edge on icy groomers, but won't be mistaken for carving skis. They are heavy and excel in busting through slop and crud. Build quality looks great.

    I wonder if a size down would have been more playful and fun. (For the record, I'm 6', about 180-185 in ski season, and usually ski longer skis.) Again, they are good skis, but the verdict is still out on whether they are great. It's possible that with more time, I'll get used to the Masterblasters and end up loving them.
    Have had the 181 cm for a while now. I'm your height and a bit fatter. They were my first more "modern" (read: not full camber square tail) ski and I really like them. They are super fun and the shorter size has always felt very quick to me in tight spaces.

    My biggest functional complaints over time have been that I wish they had somewhat better edge hold on ice and better high speed stability. I think longer by itself would likely help with speed but at the cost of the quickness in tight spaces. I sort of feel like the flex on the masterblasters is optimized around park more than I would prefer so stiffer would help. That turns out to be hard to find.

    If that sounds negative overall it shouldn't though - I'm a big guy and have been happy with my pair. My search for perfect is moving on though.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Exiled from Maine
    Posts
    385
    I have been on the Metal 181 for the last two campaigns. I'm on lift-served (travel from Chicago, thoughts and prayers) but always exploring edges, nooks & crannies wherever I go, mostly in BC and Utah. I'll drop (or fall) off natural stuff, but avoid launching from things because I'm already on life No. 6 or 7. Demo'd the enforcer 100 early on and appreciated it, but wanted something with more underfoot for travel and on paper the Metal ticked the boxes. Graphics and factory-second sales were a bonus. Honestly it's been the ideal 1-ski travel buddy. I'm 5-10 160; it's plenty of ski for me to both slice and surf. I'm always intentionally lost or exploring so speed limits aren't often an issue, and I love how it slarves and adjusts in tight spots for a ski of this width; the tips and tails are pretty compliant which makes for a fun ride in narrow chutes, gullies, etc. No issues taking it out at low tide. While overall it's business casual, under the boot it is a solid, directional boss and will go wicked deep into the red if you ask it to. Any limits for the ski are more about me - after getting into shenanigans all day in a big setting like shin-deep at Revy, we end up doing top-to-bottom groomer sorties back to the lodge and trying to kill each other. In that setting it's a lot of ski to toss around rapid-fire, on piste when you're tired. Perhaps always true for a mid-fat, but it's the only time where the Metal's noteworthy weight shows up for me. Assuming that weight is keeping the ski damp, I'm here for it - it's a champ in crud, busted up pow and the stuff I ski 90% of the time. The swing weight is much lower than the specs show and the edge grip was on lock when needed. No hesitation to recommend it as an inbounds swiss-army ski.

    I just picked up some Woodsman 108 to try something new this year. As soon as I mount them up, I'll probably list the Metals here. Probably. Maybe.
    Attached Images Attached Images    

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    11
    How have you liked the Woodsman 108s? Thinking of getting either those or the new J Skis Hotshot. My skiing style/preferences sound pretty similar to yours but Iím a bit bigger so would be looking at 187/189 lengths.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    146
    I have a pair of 181 Masterblasters and had a pair of 180 The Metals (for 3 days). 6' 155. The Masterblasters in 181 are a great fun ski. Despite their weight they are very quick edge to edge, carve well on Colorado groomers, are heavy enough to bust crud, float well enough to be good up to say 5" of new snow, fun in moguls. I lose a little confidence in them at speed but sizing up would take care of that I think. Nevertheless they are a really fun well built ski and I am happy to have them in my quiver.

    Bought a pair of The Metals last year. Was going to order the 186 but they talked me into the 180. The ski has a lot of rocker tip and tail and is quite soft (softer than the Masterblaster, especially in the tail) and skis short. I did not like this ski, particularly the back end. Get it in any kind of steep crud and there was just nothing there. That ski went back after 3 days of skiing them. This is the great thing about J Skis, ski them 3 days if you don't like them send 'em back for a full refund.

    The Metal has been replaced this year by the Hotshot which I believe is a stiffened up version of The Metal.

    PS. I replaced The Metals with K2 108 TIs, which in my opinion are fantastic skis.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Babylon
    Posts
    11,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Abol98 View Post
    I have been on the Metal 181 for the last two campaigns. I'm on lift-served (travel from Chicago, thoughts and prayers) but always exploring edges, nooks & crannies wherever I go, mostly in BC and Utah. I'll drop (or fall) off natural stuff, but avoid launching from things because I'm already on life No. 6 or 7. Demo'd the enforcer 100 early on and appreciated it, but wanted something with more underfoot for travel and on paper the Metal ticked the boxes. Graphics and factory-second sales were a bonus. Honestly it's been the ideal 1-ski travel buddy. I'm 5-10 160; it's plenty of ski for me to both slice and surf. I'm always intentionally lost or exploring so speed limits aren't often an issue, and I love how it slarves and adjusts in tight spots for a ski of this width; the tips and tails are pretty compliant which makes for a fun ride in narrow chutes, gullies, etc. No issues taking it out at low tide. While overall it's business casual, under the boot it is a solid, directional boss and will go wicked deep into the red if you ask it to. Any limits for the ski are more about me - after getting into shenanigans all day in a big setting like shin-deep at Revy, we end up doing top-to-bottom groomer sorties back to the lodge and trying to kill each other. In that setting it's a lot of ski to toss around rapid-fire, on piste when you're tired. Perhaps always true for a mid-fat, but it's the only time where the Metal's noteworthy weight shows up for me. Assuming that weight is keeping the ski damp, I'm here for it - it's a champ in crud, busted up pow and the stuff I ski 90% of the time. The swing weight is much lower than the specs show and the edge grip was on lock when needed. No hesitation to recommend it as an inbounds swiss-army ski.

    I just picked up some Woodsman 108 to try something new this year. As soon as I mount them up, I'll probably list the Metals here. Probably. Maybe.
    Woodsman you say?!?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by B7J2T4 View Post
    I'm interested in the masterblaster as well! Specifically anyone's experience with the 187cm length.
    I bought the 187 this year (20/21 model) so obviously have not skiied it yet but i will say its def heavy, easily the heaviest thing in my large quiver (but also one of the few with metal, so duh), but its heavier than an OG bibby 190 w FKS 18s. I have a pivot 15 on the MB. Flex seems very even and round, wouldnt call it stiff at all, and rocker profile is certainly on point for what I wanted. Im looking for a substantively looser Mantra where i can easily break the tails free, so hoping this will fit the bill. Will report back when A basin opens and I can ribbon of death them a bit.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Tahoe>Missoula>Fort Collins
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by ender9099 View Post
    I bought the 187 this year (20/21 model) so obviously have not skiied it yet but i will say its def heavy, easily the heaviest thing in my large quiver (but also one of the few with metal, so duh), but its heavier than an OG bibby 190 w FKS 18s. I have a pivot 15 on the MB. Flex seems very even and round, wouldnt call it stiff at all, and rocker profile is certainly on point for what I wanted. Im looking for a substantively looser Mantra where i can easily break the tails free, so hoping this will fit the bill. Will report back when A basin opens and I can ribbon of death them a bit.
    dont forget to detune


  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Mid-tomahawk
    Posts
    1,142
    Quote Originally Posted by margotron View Post
    dont forget to detune
    My 187 MBs (last year's) came very aggressively detuned from the factory. If anything I wish they'd done less.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Quandary View Post
    Bought a pair of The Metals last year. Was going to order the 186 but they talked me into the 180. The ski has a lot of rocker tip and tail and is quite soft (softer than the Masterblaster, especially in the tail) and skis short. I did not like this ski, particularly the back end. Get it in any kind of steep crud and there was just nothing there. That ski went back after 3 days of skiing them. This is the great thing about J Skis, ski them 3 days if you don't like them send 'em back for a full refund.
    At 6 foot tall, that seems a bit short. I'm 5'6" and ski the 180. Would not want to go shorter. They ski a bit shorter than their stated length.

    How that tail feels is somewhat related to the tune as well. Had a tune where they took a bit too much edge off the rear (since it's a twin tip they assumed I spin and ride switch) and now there's a tendency for that to wash out in a rotation if I pressure the tails too much at the end of the turn on hardpack. That's the tune, not the ski. Generally amazed at how well a ski this wideski carves ice.

    The Metal is a master of just about everything you throw at it. Perhaps not the leader in any specific category, but amazing just the same. It's not a light ski, but yo only notice that on the uphill, not while riding. It has an incredible suspension that works for aggressive and laid back styles. Hotshot sounds like great update.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by mf0cb6 View Post
    At 6 foot tall, that seems a bit short. I'm 5'6" and ski the 180. Would not want to go shorter. They ski a bit shorter than their stated length.

    How that tail feels is somewhat related to the tune as well. Had a tune where they took a bit too much edge off the rear (since it's a twin tip they assumed I spin and ride switch) and now there's a tendency for that to wash out in a rotation if I pressure the tails too much at the end of the turn on hardpack. That's the tune, not the ski. Generally amazed at how well a ski this wideski carves ice.

    The Metal is a master of just about everything you throw at it. Perhaps not the leader in any specific category, but amazing just the same. It's not a light ski, but yo only notice that on the uphill, not while riding. It has an incredible suspension that works for aggressive and laid back styles. Hotshot sounds like great update.
    I have you by 6", but you've got me by 25#. The tune on The Metals was fine, the shop I use knows me and knows what I want. That said The Metals were replaced by K2 Mindbender 108s. I demo'd both the 179 and 186. I liked both a lot. I went with the 179s (which are actually longer than the 180 Metals) because they were much quicker than the 186s without giving up much stability or crud busting power. The fit what I was looking for. The tail of the MB108 is much stiffer and not much rocker as The Metal. Way better in steep variable conditions. For me the K2 is a significantly better ski.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,257
    Anyone ski a J skis Friend?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_pretzel View Post
    Anyone ski a J skis Friend?
    I skied the last version. Good ski, but I went Billy Goat which is better in every regard except hard snow for me. But all in all a good ski. Lotsa of float, easy to turn, enough weight to bust chop, can actual get it on edge on hard snow. Based on reviews new version is supposed to be better at everything.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    469
    Got some 186 cm Vacations for the PC inbounds slot this year. Basement flex seems promising... like a Line Blend with 20% more stiffness. And way more backbone and rebound pop.

    Name:  E52154E7-3A9C-480F-912E-5382EB73E4F0.jpeg
Views: 1366
Size:  95.6 KBName:  1E505F6C-E666-4BFA-B8DA-519AE0632F93.jpeg
Views: 1366
Size:  86.7 KB

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •