K2 Phat Luv, or hold out for tip rocker?

My wife's powder ski is the Pocket Rocket (90 underfoot, I think).  She doesn't love them, she can't really articulate why but I can see that she struggles in pow.  I'd call her an advanced intermediate who likes to ski off piste and likes to ski fast (Tahoe).  I'm looking for something that will make deep snow easier, but still ski like a "normal" ski on groomers.  A ski that would allow her to stay more forward without fear of going over the bars would probably help a lot.  Last years Phat Luv is available for a nice price, but maybe I should be looking at something with tip rocker, like the Czar or Kiku.  Opinions and advice appreciated.  

The Volkl Aura is excellent for railing groomers, and performs acceptably well in powder because of its waist width. 

The Volkl Kiku is good for railing groomers, and performs quite well in powder because of its waist width and subtle reverse camber.

The Line Pandora is acceptable on groomers, and performs extremely well in powder because of its enormous waist width, extended tip rocker, early taper (to prevent tip hooking), and light weight. 

The Phat Luv - it has its fans, but I don't like it.  A dead plank, IMHO.

 I can't attest to the properties of the Nordica Nemesis, but I've been eyeing it.

I recently bought the 09 Kiku which , as acrophobia said, has a subtle reverse camber in 10.

The nemesis is 98 under foot with a little more shape than the aura and/or kiku. I'm guessing that it has more float due to the width but is also a decent play ski due to the shape, and flex.

Have I confused youyet?
If so, I've done my job......

Consider the Fisher Watea 94.

I'm going to say something that's not going to be very popular here. If you're having problems in powder with a ski that's 90 mm wide, the problem could be technique. Or snow quality.

Very true. The PR was quite good in powder and remains better than skis suggested so far like the Aura, Nemesis, and Watea. In fact, I'd say that any ski wide enough or rockered enough to offer any chance of being a magic bullet for her in powder will not have a chance of feeling "normal" outside of the deep stuff.

SJ

My sister luvs her Phat Luvs. However, she did buy some new Czar's when on sale this summer for $390, so she is very stoked and dying to ride them.
Like you wife, I was/am a powder jong compared to the better skiers here. That all changed for the better once I bought some 195 Praxis Powders. They are a few inches taller than me and they are a reverse camber and sidecut ski. My point is, longer, fat skis in powder that are not a traditional sidecut are it from my experiences. Are they good on groomed snow back to the lift, not really. But did they make a HUGE difference in my powder skiing, yes.
IMO, get her some wide skis with flat camber, tip and tail rise/rocker, that are a bit taller than her and she will be a happy girl.

Heavier powder, such as you'll encounter in Tahoe, is a nemesis of the Pocket Rocket for a couple reasons.  One is their soft, reverse camber tips which get knocked around and make the skis squirrelly.  Another is they tend to have a forward mount which makes them feel unstable.

The Phat Luv has a conventional tip and is a bit stiffer than the Pocket Rockets.  Their mount point tends to be more conventional, also.  They will feel more stable to your wife.




 

I forgot to note in my other thread that the K2 Phat Luv runs longer and skis much longer than the PRs.  In some ways that might be an advantage as longer skis feel more stable in powder.

One more comment.  What length ski is your wife skiing and what is the length of her everyday skis?  My girlfriend's everyday ski is 158 cm but her powder skis are 168 cm.  Fore/aft stability is a big problem with people learning to ski powder and too short a ski, especially in West Coast powder, will make the skier feel he/she is very unstable.

agree with Achrophobia about the Phat Luvs being a dead plank. Just MHO but if she has not skied them and had definite opinions she finds difficult to articulate, she should demo before buying.

Her Pocket Rockets are 165, her regular skis are about 160 I think.  From what I see, in deep snow she sits back, and suffers from all the consequences that go with that.  I think that's because in deep snow being "centered" means flirting with going over the bars all the time.  If you sit back, at least you're not face-planting every tenth turn, so for an intermediate the "comfort zone" is back from center.  Staying really centered in deep snow is an expert level skill imo and something she's not going to acquire over night or maybe ever.  My thinking was that tip rocker might allow her to move that "comfort zone" balance point forward, since face planting will be less likely.  More forward would be a big help for her.  So maybe not a magic bullet, but perhaps a magic BB?  I've never tried a ski with any type of rocker, so this is all speculation for me. 

With the right skis, skiing centered in powder is not an expert level skill.  It's pretty easy, actually. 

The Nordica Nemesis is gorgeous ski, but it's stiff and burly, probably not the thing to make intermediates happy in powder. 

If you're looking for a ski that makes powder a no-brainer, you're going to be hard-pressed to find something better than the 2010 Pandora.  Its shape is optimized for powder, but it has just enough sidecut to make it manageable on-piste.  It is completely forgiving - the long tails will pop her forwards if she sits back; and the big tip rocker will keep her from going over the bars.  She can even thow her skis to the side suddenly if she wants to, even in deep powder. 

BTW, I have the 2009 Pandora, and while it is a good powder ski, it doesn't have the tip rocker, which really does make a difference.  You can save money looking for the 2009, but the 2010 is a different, and better design.

The Volkl Kiku is stiffer and heavier, with reverse camber and a conventional tip shape.  It's going to require a bit more user input.  It will perform very well in soft snow, and probably better in crud, but isn't a "no-brainer" powder ski. 

Both are fairly widely available, and thus should be easy for her to demo. 

Another vote for the Pandora which along with the Rossi Vodoo/Roxy Mumbo is among the very best packages available in a women's powder ski. (IMFHO)

The fly in the PBJ here is that the OP wanted a ski that would ski like "normal" on groomers. Neither the Pandora or the Vodoo will fit that requirement although the Pandora is at least closer.

SJ

 Thanks for all the info, much appreciated.

I've seen Phat Luvs disparaged as "dead planks" here and on tgr (where they are decidedly uncool.)  Well, I think of my '08 167 cm Phat Luvs as aircraft carriers -- in the best possible way.  They are so unbelievably solid I can go anywhere on them with confidence. The only place Phat Luvs don't totally shine is in bumps.  What is especially surprising to me is how good they are on groomers and at speed.  They are bomber on piste and off.

So why did I buy a pair of demo Czars this summer?  Hmmm ...  To up my "cool" factor, perhaps?    But mainly because of the rockered tips.  I tried them out one day last season and was fascinated by how easy they are to turn.  Not the nice round PSIA turns some people dream about, but windshield wiper, turn on a dime turns.  Avoid that tree one foot in front of you turns. 

So this season I am going to have a tough time deciding which skis to use on a powder day and a few days thereafter.  I'll let you know in a couple of months which I prefer.

My bottom line suggestion:  let your wife demo Phat Luvs, Czars and at least one of the "livelier" skis that have been suggested.  She will own the skis, she should try them out first and decide which she prefers.

Something that you might want to try first would be to take her PRs to the shop and have them mounted 2cm aft (back) from where they are. This should help place her over the spot where she wants to be balanced and will bring her out of the back seat.

Also you could try changing the  binding ramp angle to be slightly more flat using shims / different lifters.
Edited by tromano - 11/4/09 at 4:17pm

I agree that the Phat luvs are unfairly portrayed on most of these threads.  IMHO they are a very damp ski, while the Volkls are snappy, but damp can be seen as stable and smooth to some while dead to another.  I like a ski with a nice mix of smooth and poppy.
The Phat Luvs have a nice sweet spot for someone looking for smooth.

You know, I demoed the Roxy Mumbo Jumbo, and although it's probably fine in powder, I thought it was aggressively crappy on the dust-on-crust groomers I had available at the time.  I'd say the Pandora beats it hands down on groomers-back-to-the-lift performance. 

Though Pandoras and Kikus won't ski like narrow-waisted carving skis on the groomers, the learning curve is pretty shallow, IMHO.

Couldn't agree more. Your described conditions are certainly not where skis such as the Mumbo/S7 etc. are at their best. I don't necessarily pass overall judgement on them due to those conditions though. The Pandora is fairly moderate in design and skis pretty close to normal (as close as a soft 115mm can anyhow) it's just not quite the magic bullet that the Mumbo is for really deep stuff.

The Pandora is a very well thought out ski though and honestly not many folks are gonna need more powder performance than it can deliver. Another unnoticed ski for women is the SFB. It is a bit stiffer than the Pandora for those who need just a little more ski in the "wide conventional" category.

SJ

Just so you all know your advice has not been in vain, it's led me to this conclusion:  I should get her a real powder ski like the S7 or Pandora, and forget about the Phat Luv.  But those are too expensive (quote: "Are you nuts, I'd rather have a new sofa!"), so she'll rock the Pocket Rockets for another season and I'll try to pick up something modern when prices thaw later in the year.   I may also move her bindings back a couple of cm as tromano suggested, and maybe toss the shims altogether.  Thanks again.

Is the MumboJumbo the same as the s7/VooDoo BC 110?

I guess that's not surprising given the Roxy/Dynastar/Rossi relationship.

So what size for someone 5'2"/125 with strong skills? I'm guessing the bigger 176 since the running length will be closer to something in the high 160s due to the rocker

I have a friend who skis the Roxy in the 176cm length and she is about 5' 2" and I'd say about 110ish soaking wet with ski boots on... she is 'strong', as in former UVM team captain, ex-US Dev team strong. She now lives and in Park city, so she primarily skis Utah. She would say go longer than you might think with this ski, if you aren't intimidated by the length you won't be disappointed.

yes, they are the same sort of, the dimensions shrink down as sizes get shorter. most are listed at 110mm underfoot.

Thanks Whiteroom. That's what I'm thinking as well.

Mrs.Squeaky might like a pair of MumboJumbos

My understanding is that it's the same ski, but the Roxy is typically mounted more center for park and switch skiing, while the Rossis' marked mounting point is more traditional, slightly aft.

It is the same ski and has the same mounting range.

SJ