meh review: K2 PE

[raj]

So these get good reviews here as no new snow/ park/ groomer day skis. I got them for just that based on the reviews and not too impressed so this more detailed review (in case it helps the next guy).

Skier: 5'8", 140-145, fast, good freeriding but suck in park. Long snowboarding background with some racing. Got 169 PE to keep them short for park, mounted +3

Reference other skis: Loved old wizard explosives in 180 but sold them for my main skis right now 180 bulldog Karhu Jak/ Line motherships. Also have the old K2 enemy (Red/black before PE) for park.

where tested: Mt Hood Meadows. Groomers, crud, rain crust, park, pipe some small powder stashes.

Groomers: Easiest ski I have had for turning at slow speeds. Most definitely has a low speed limit for my weight. Tip chatter between 20-30 mph. Above that it gets scary because mid body over flexes in high G turns. Not a safe/ stable feel.

Crud: Even more of speed limit. Ski has no metal so is quite "lively". Stubby tip adn forward mount gives going over handle bars feels at speed. Lots of deflection in both tip and mid body. My wizard exploders were the best crud ski I have been on. Even my Karhu's are not too bad due to metal and longer length.

Switch: Great. My switch ridign is definitely improvign with these: big twin tip + forward mount + good flex for switch.

Pipe: I like my old enemy better because it is even more noodly.

Park: Fine although my old trashed/ no worries enemy are perfect to tras even more.

Overall: I think these are solid value for the money ( I paid 200$) and quite good if you are buying only for park. They are probably fine all mountain for a 100 pound teenage girl or pre teen boy. For normal adult males (even light weight ones like me), I don't see how you ski them all mtn without completely over powering these.

PS: my review is for the 169. It is possibel that the 179 has a much more beefy flex. If I were doing it again I would defintely go with atleast the 179 (or some other ski) for adults.

PPS: I now still have to get something else for all mtn. Ideas ?

[jibco]

The longer ones are still turny as hell. If that 169 has a shorter radius i could imagine it being super gay.

Comparing these to sploders will definitely make them seem wack and way too easy to over-drive.

I think they feel pretty good in the pipe and bumps, but not anywhere else. I think the karma may be a valid option.

[nexus]

well i finally got my 179 pe's out of australia and into some real (read NOT man made) snow...

loved 'em

skiier 6'5", 200 lbs, expert

mtn st anton

snow crud, fresh, hard pack, soft pack, groomers

loved them in all conditions... not the perfect ski for any, but versatile enough to be an 7/10 in all.

they are turny as hell tho!

[pechelman]

So lets see, you got a park ski in a short length and mounted them a good bit forward. What did you expect?

Ive been on both 180 sploders and 179 PEs and I was pretty happy with the PEs. The 179s were a tad long for me in the bumps at the time, but I think I would take that sacrafice for the little bit of added stability and float.

If you're really wanting a different "all-mountain" ski in that width, checkout the 176 or even 186 mojo 90. If the mount line is in the same place this year as last, Id reccomend moving the 176 back 1-2cm and maybe -1 on the 186.
I used to own the 176 but found it too short and without good tip float for me at 5'10 170.

[nexus]

the pe is by no means a park ski...

its park ski-able but way too stiff to be a park ski.

(except the 04 and 05 models with the polycarb top sheet)

[pechelman]

meh
not that i know 1 thing about park skiing, but flex wise, they arent all that different than k2s other park skis...at least according to endre's pdf file.

[nexus]

there's a lot less flex than the fugative or silencer... a lot!

[raj]

"So lets see, you got a park ski in a short length and mounted them a good bit forward. What did you expect?"

No argument from me and I agree. That was the point of my review: something that works well for the park is NOT going to work well all mountain. PE has the reputation of doing everything well and in my experience you can't have it both ways. Why did I go short? because I like smooth, noodly skis but with some pop in the pipe. 179 would be a bit long in the pipe for me.
I also don't think it is just length but stiffness (or lack of) and too turny a nature. I have demod other short skis in similar lengths (170-175) like the head im88 which are a lot more stable at speed in crud so its not just length.

To be fair, I am not complainig too much. They are a super good value and I am keepign them for park. Just be aware of the speed limit.

[raj]

Nexus I haven't skied the fujative or silencer. PE feels slightly stiffer but not too much compared to my old enemy which was quite noodly. If the other park specific skis are even more flexy then I guess I am not interested (even parks here have soem groomers to get back to lifts).

[nexus]

yeah the 06 and 07 pe's have a p-tex top sheet that stiffens them up a lot

[laseranimal]

PE's are NOT park skis, they're all mountain skis and are designed to be skied the same length that you'd ski in an all mountain board

the K2 park ski is the Fujative just flex the PE and the Fuji side by side and you'll understand what I mean

my 179's mounted +1.75 really don't have a speed limit, sure they're not as smooth at speed as my old 178 G4's were but they're not going to fold up when you peg the throttle, and they have the added bonus of being MUCH better in the bumps then the G4's ever were

As for mounting them +3 its no wonder you had problems, the PE's pretty stiff in both the tip and tail and doesn't have the smooth rounder flex pattern that would lend itself to being mounted so far forward.

I'd say give the 179's a shot for all mountain, you'll like them a lot better then the 169

[dirtybryan]

I think PE's are definitely a park ski. I think people have a misconcieved notion that a park ski has to be a noodle. Noodle skis are definitely good for jibbing, but a moderately stiff, moderately long (not short) ski is great for getting more pop off jumps and a more stable landing.

[DudeLebowSKI]

If your used to 180 Explosivs for all mountain, I think you should try the Dynastar LP in a 176. Actually, screw that. If you are concerned about speed limits through crud, and you already have skis you can use in the park and pipe, go for the Legend Pro 186. You'll never look back. I went from 2nd gen. 179 Pistols to 1 Gen. 186 LP and it was a completely different world. Bomber stable in all conditions. I'm 5'8 @155.

[keksie]

did you sell 180cm explosivs that you liked to get 169cm PEs as all mountain planks? :E

[robokill1981]

the K2 park ski is the Fujative just flex the PE and the Fuji side by side and you'll understand what I mean

PE's are noodly in the tip and get stiffer underfoot and into the tail. That's why they have such good pop and are fun for buttering. I've never flexed a Fujative but I'm guessing you're saying it's a "park ski" since they're softer than the PE? Well that's actually wrong. You want a "stiffer" ski like the PE to ride park with since it has more pop than a noodle. Fujative's are soft because they fit a price point and marketing niche, not because of their intended application on the hill.

I'd say give the 179's a shot for all mountain, you'll like them a lot better then the 169

So true.

[raj]

Dudelobowski: Excellent suggestion on LP. I didn't know they made it in 176. I thought they only come in 186 or 194. Definitely will look at that in 176 or even 186 (you are pretty close to my weight so that is good info).

Keksie: Yes I am stupid but not that stupid :-). I got the Jaks instead of my trashed exploders in the hope of getting better powder ride (Jaks were about 5 mm wider and softer). Obviously, in hindsight that was a really stupid move ! If I had the wizards now I would never ever sell them.

laseranimal: yup, should have gotten 179s. Too late now so this can help the next guy. These ski short so don't go smaller than 179 if you are a guy.

DirtyBryan: I see what you are saying for jumps and tables. In pipe though, I am sure I like a buttery ski with some pop. I don't like really stiff in the pipe.

[kellen]

Get out of the backseat and then come back and tell me about tip chatter. I weigh the same as you and ski 169 Seth's and get almost no chatter. Skis don't chatter on their own, unless they're too long for you. Engage the tips for me and come back. What especially surprises me is that you claim chatter even when you mounted them +3. Do you ski like you're sitting in a rocking chair or something?

[raj]

Kellen what part of "good freerider, some racing" didn't you get ? I have been on alpine/ race snowboards since the early nineties. One of the first things you learn with just one edge instead of two at speed is fore aft pressure or you go down fast. No, I don't sit on the toilet seat while skiing.

You are correct that if one applies enough forward pressure, the tips won't chatter on groomers. But then they over flex at speed if they are noodly or don't have enough fore length. If you back off on forward pressure, you get chatter. Finding the balance bewteen the two is much easier at speed on either a longer board or ski or a stiffer one (or both). Heck all my alpine snowboards are longer (and MUCH longer running length) than these skis.

If you find that you can go at GS speeds on groomers or crud on 169 Seths with good stability, more power to you. Maybe the FIS has something to learn from you by mandating > 190 cm for men for the speed events

[kellen]

I'm sorry, maybe I read you wrong, but I find it somewhat odd that you complain of chatter on that ski with your height/weight and having it mounted that far forward. I've skied it in the 169 length, and found that if I was in the backseat, yes it would chatter, but skiing normally, I found no problems with chatter except in really, really bad crud, and in those conditions, the ski just isn't stiff enough overall to prevent deflection. As an example in the conditions which I experienced chatter, there would only be a handful of skis that could rail through mank that bad (squads would be one).

[Deep Days]

Just to chime in on the issue of tip chatter:

I loved my soft BROs except for tip chatter on refrozen crud. I have made a serious point to get the hell out of the backseat this season (I did a very small amount of race training, which has definitely helped), so I'm pretty sure that's not the issue. The tips on the soft BRO are just really soft, which I would guess leads to deflection, no? This is the main reason why I have switched to stiffs, but I haven't skied the stiffs yet (injured since just before the swap).

Just want to say that I'm not convinced that tip chatter is caused entirely by skiing backseat. Having skied B3s and Pocket Rockets in similar conditions and experiencing a lot more chatter in the softer PRs, I would definitely say that tip stiffness is a factor.