Since scoober just dropped $300 at SuperGo, and I didn't even gripe about it, I decided I'm in the mood to pamper myself and buy new skis.
Thoughts on:
K2 Burnin' Love
PR's
1080's
Discuss. :)
Printable View
Since scoober just dropped $300 at SuperGo, and I didn't even gripe about it, I decided I'm in the mood to pamper myself and buy new skis.
Thoughts on:
K2 Burnin' Love
PR's
1080's
Discuss. :)
I'd go with a stiff fat ski.
That is all.
Oh, and the burnin' luvs are a sweet, stiff ski with a Bioflex wood core...good stuff!
Get some Explosives from Mtn Lion. Use the extra to buy some sexy gear and take your man out on the town.
What he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
My 180 explosives RULE.
Hey AC, go find that thread about the perfect date. You know I know what I'm talking about. Butters should be thanking me.
I love my B3's, but am giving the 180 Explosives a go this season . . . can't report yet though :-)
I'm not gunna be much help w/ those choices...this Sprite's on used beat-up mini public enemas (I can't flex a "normal" ski) in the upcoming season. And also have skinny waist ice-cutter atomics for the EC bulletproof. :rolleyes:
But from what I've read here & elsewhere...those explosives would be a good choice. :cool:
Sprite
[Beavis] She said stiff and fat. Heheheheheheheheheh! That was cool.[/Beavis]Quote:
Originally Posted by altachic
http://www.mds.mdh.se/~adb93tem/b&b/pics/zapper.gif
I just got girlguide a 170cm Fischer 106 for $230 new on ebay That is soft and fat.
I have 165 and 173 CMH still too. $250-300 for them
<<COUGH>> Scratch BC <<COUGH>>
Look at em', they think they are special just because they are the opposite sex. Tech talk....
"Not that I really care, because, well I just dont care"
you mean it's not true?? damnit....
Son, it's about the birds and the bees........Quote:
Originally Posted by Droopy
<<COUGH>> NOODLES IN 30 DAYS <<COUGH>> <<HACK>>Quote:
Originally Posted by girlski0912
Well that discussion proved to be a bust. Maybe I'll just do some demos this season. I must say, I'm a bit bummed, because scoober's knee is F'd, Kona can't ski and skiing alone usually gives me ADD in about 30 minutes.
Although maybe I don't need new skis, because in the words of my dear husband, I can just use my size 11 gargantuan feet. :rolleyes:
I didn't comment before because I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for.
There's a pretty big waist size difference between the Burnin Luv and the PR. Are you looking for a fat ski or no?
I definitely like the Phat Luv, but I've written enough about those already probably....
Burnin Luv could be pretty fun though if you're looking for a skinny ski. Though for that size range, I've always dug the Atomic SX11. I demoed those a while back and they're a blast. Haven't tried the Burnin Luv though, so I guess if it was me looking for something skinny, I'd demo the Burnin Luv too just to see. I've obviously been impressed with K2's other high end women's skis.
As for PRs - they're virtually identical size as the Phat Luvs, just with the twintip. I skied 1080s way back when... they were my "fat skis" like 5 years ago. Heh. Are you looking for a twintip?
I love my Pocket Rockets. I picked them up from SUMO (when it was still SUMO) 2 years ago. A friend suggested that I give them a shot because he saw my style of skiing (old racer) thought they would be good for an all around. Like you, I am looking for a good fat boy but $$ is tight this year.
Slooooowwww Pitch!Quote:
Originally Posted by lizyski
what she said.Quote:
Originally Posted by altachic
that said (and repeated), where do you ski and what kind of skiier are you?
And what are you skiing on now so we know what areas of your quiver you might want to expand?Quote:
Originally Posted by britney
I'm also in love with my Explosiv 180s. Others that are super fun are the Armada ARV: believe it or not they float and turn like butta. More of an all-around ski but really, really fun. The Fischer 10.6 or 106 or whatever they're calling them these days. Super fat, but surprisingly easy and fun to turn. If I could get two more skis this season, those be them.
Duh!Quote:
Originally Posted by Droopy
567890
to clarify... (maybe?)
I am trying to encourage LAN to move beyond her carving/racing background and come hang out in the ungroomed. This will be a Washington state lift-served ski. It will also be LAN's first possibility to get on something fatter than her Rossis from a few years back.
So the new 1080's... can they hang all-mountain? I'm thinking the combination of their light weight, 80mm waist, and twin is a pretty good combination for LAN.
The PR's? They are being dragged along for the ride because of their similarity to the 1080's and their overwhelming popularity and ubiquity. Although I think a 90mm waist is a big step from the 67mm on the Rossis.
The Burnin' Luvs are on the list because LAN likes the cause behind the T:nine series, and is maybe a little intimidated by the width of the Phat Luv's (along the same lines as the PR). I wish there was a T:nine with a waist of 80-85mm, because I think that would be the choice here.
The last thing I want to do is put LAN on a huge ski and have her hate them and me because they are too wide and may have a little bit of a learning curve.
If we are going to go the standard midfat route, I think the Burnin Luv (or whatever the top T:nine is) would be the answer. However I guess the big question here is if going short (160~170cm) in an 85~95mm waisted ski is too fat of an everyday ski for someone who is used to railing turns and bashing gates? (I guess we just keep the old Rossis around and that's the hardpack ski right there)
Get something 90+. I chased gates for more that 20yrs and you can't find me on anything more narrow that 90 ever. Many skis marketed for "powder" or "off-piste" can rail on the groomed.
Check Sierra Trading Post, they have some 163cm Suggar Daddies which would be perfect. DSs have a very precise carvy feel for a wide ski.
I then highly recommend the Phat Luv. Burnin Luv is high end, but has like a 68mm waist. That's not going to get her off piste. Phat Luv has a 90mm waist. It carves well, turns easily, floats in powder... I got mine because I wanted a tree ski (short-easy turning)- and it turns out I like them in most conditions. They held up really well last year too, so bonus points for durability.Quote:
Originally Posted by scoober
PRs are probably pretty similar, but I haven't tried them. I don't really need the twintip, they don't seem very durable, and everyone has them. They probably ski about the same though.
If you want her to get off piste I'd skip the 1080 and go with the PR or Phat Luv.
Cool. Thanks AG. We'll look into the Phat Luv for sure then.
pretty different flex patteren between the phat luvs and prs from flexing the luvs in the shop (i own prs). prs have softer tail and stiffer under foot.
both skis are wicked light.
you don't have to do any thinking to ski on a pr, they are the most user friendly ski i have ever tried. point and shoot, no issues in the tight spots or short radius, thats what they excell at. super easy on the groomer, easier to turn than the nancy G3's i have (74 in the waist) and i would be on the pr's every day over the g3's the last three years, and i ski in the east coast.
Then when she's ready to add something new again you can look even bigger - BS106, W105s, Explosiv, Gotama, etc... (I have BS106 for that).
Yeah, phat luvs do have a fairly stiff tail, but I like that. They're not noodles - just easy to ski. I'd really like to demo them back to back and see how different they feel. But... that might be a while. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by basom
So how about the Apache Recon, or better yet last year's Axis XP (which you may be able to find cheap)? Women seem to really like this ski from the reviews I've seen. They're 78 mm waist.Quote:
Originally Posted by scoober
Granted it isn't as pretty as the Phat Luv :)
Also, LAN can't use her "doesn't want to ski alone" excuse. She should know there are enough Seattle maggots out here that she can always find a ski partner if she wants one.
for similar dimensions to the phat luv (120-90-110) but lighter weight (and prolly more flex), consider the LINE celebrity. i think they are another company with a worthy "cause," and this is their first women-specific ski. and a full twin-tip. (see page 88 of the new powder for a write-up).
i agree with others who have said that even for your first off-piste ski, under 90 cm waist is not enough in WA.
-b
Okay, here I am in my massive burrito induced coma.
I suppose to understand what type of skis I'm looking for, I should illustrate my skiing style. I love to ski, period. While I used to be much more aggressive (faster, steeper and hucking myself/yard sales), I think my skiing style has mellowed out. My ideal skiing day is a gorgeous, crisp winter day, when the sun is out, making things a big slushy (although I don't mind whiteouts by any means). I like to just point the tips down and cruise. I've never been much of an off piste girl (aside from the occasional jaunt off the groomed stuff), but that doesn't mean I won't expand my interests as I continue to evolve as a skiier.
What I'm used to in a ski is something that can handle any condition and any type of skiing. My "old" Rossi women's skis are comfortable in both Cascade Cement/ice, slush and powder. I've never felt freaked out on them or out of control. Mind you, they're a pretty stiff (huh huh, I said "stiff") ski.
I suppose I'm looking to jump up to a better, newer, more advanced ski. As far as how phat, I'm not sure yet because I've never skied on them. I looked seriously at the Phat Luv last year, and almost bought them in the heat of the moment, but the waist was so darned intimidating to me, so I passed them up. I think what scares me the most is jumping up to a phat ski and not having it feel as comfortable as my old skis. The good news is that I have strong legs, so I don't think phat skis would get away from me too quickly.
I definitely have some searching to do, that's for sure. Scoober thinks I should get the Phat Luv, so we'll see what happens.
And as far as skiing with maggots. I think I have maggot-related social anxiety disorder. Weirds me out.
Demo them. I'd be shocked if you found a 90mm waist difficult to ski after a few runs on anything other than serious ice. Even on our Alta version of icy days, I can rail turns on the Phat Luv on groomers. They have a nice sidecut (more sidecut than my other skis) and behave well. And I think once you give a 90ish ski a chance you'll decide that that dimension IS what you want for an all-around, do anything ski. 105+ ends up being your specialty ski for deep days. And whatever skinny ski you want for groomer only ice days. Give it a shot.
If 90mm seems too much, then you could try some skinnier skis in the mid-80mm range that are good all rounders, like the Volkl G4, R:Ex (or whatever this year's equivalents are), and their ilk. They are stiff and can lay trench on the groomers like a race ski. They can also handle off-piste stuff easily. They are NOT bump skis, and they do NOT float much in the light deep stuff. But they sound like the kind of ski that is good for the variable conditions you describe.
<super loud announcer through a megaphone> STEP AWAY FROM THE 1080s </super loud announcer through the megaphone>
its sounds like you aren't considering them anymore anyway. . but i will tell you. . . . i raced in college. ....and thats it, i didnt grow up racing, just skiing since i was 3. I demoed the 1080 and thought i was going to break the thing in half, so if you used to race. . . iw oudl stay away unless you want a super light park specific ski.
in the same day i demoed the g4. I woudl describe them as STUPID FAST. so if you're finding you are more in cruiser mode these days than race mode, you may not want those either.
the PRs were my first fat skiis after my race skis. the transition was pretty much non existent. maybe it felt weird a little the first run to have wide skis... but then it ruled. The side cute made them carve similar to what i was use to in my race skis and they did the nice 90mm floaty thing in the pow. you should have ZERO issues going into a 90mm waisted ski. in fact, i will give you the "Re Guarantee" that you will love it!
that said. . . the PRs are soft, so from what AG has said about those phat luvs, go get you sum! i think -i- want some now
and next year you will undoubtedly want to move up to a fatter ski circa 105 like everyone else suggested. it seems to be the natural progession. (i am on the W105 now). don't fight the natural progression! if i had the money i'd buy longer AND fatter this year. the end.
Last night we went and looked at the Phat Luv's and the Burnin' Luv's. I'm kind of leaning more towards the Burnin' Luv's, but again, I'm intimidated by the waist on the Phat's. Decisions, decisions ...
DEMO something 90ish before you buy another skinny ski. Seriously.
agreed. i was amazed how easy it was going from a 70mm ski to an 88mm. just to add even more confusion, try the dynastar little big fat (avail. in 158, 168, and 178). very easy ski, but a bit more bite than a PR, and you can find them for very cheap. i use it for AT, but it has no problem laying down trenches when it's not too icy and that's even with touring binders.Quote:
Originally Posted by altagirl