Nay or Yay?
I mean: super sidecuts on powder skis in general? Phantoms etc.
Line markets Elizabeth: "as close as freestyle snowboard as possible"
OK, fine. But since skis and snowboards seem to be quite different animals and here on the TGR forum the general opinion is that sidecut sucks in pow, it leads me wondering why Pollard generated this kind of thing? He obvioysly knows his shit. Could it be that the sidecut is made only for carving the spins from booters? I just somehow doubt that.
I'm not buying anything here, just killing time at work - but this has been on my mind some time. (A few) Kids on NS seem to praise their new Elizabeths...are they just silly kids who don't know how to ski or innovative and open minded new school gurus who are onto something new here?
I just wonder if you make the ski wide enough, is it possible to have more sidecut without making the ski unpredictable and too hooky on soft snow? I'm thinking something like 150-120-140 in a quite short lenght,like 180cm?. (Elisabeth is 139 - 110 - 137 @ 172 cm)
Think about general freeride/freestyle snowboards: those things have a lot of sidecut but still the riders float easily, schmear their turns and in general kill it in the pow. I mean if the surface area is so huge that you basically ski on the base of the ski anyway, does the sidecut actually "hook" that much on the soft snow. Line also states something about elliptical sidecut...but isn't that common stuff in general?(K2's progressive sidecut etc.)
I just like the idea of a very wide ski that you could surf / schmear on the pow but still lay deep carved arcs on the firmer stuff + trick a bit here and there. Am I dreaming here? (or even worse should I still buy the Elizabeth...heh)
Bookmarks