EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Park/Powder skis for a lightweight?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Park/Powder skis for a lightweight?

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Bit of background:

I'm 20 years old, about 5'5" and 140lbs.
I currently ski a pair of 160cm Atomic SX:11's. Fantastic ski on marked pistes, but I've found them a little heavy and unwieldy for off-piste and park stuff.

Consequently, I'm looking for another pair of skis that I can pull out if the conditions don't suit the Atomics.
I don't really think one pair of skis can do everything - but if I reckon that if I keep the SX:11's for on-piste ripping and get a suitable pair of twin-tips for the rest of it then that should serve me well for a while.


I've read good things about the Pocket Rockets and 1080's - but the length question is interesting for someone of my build.

Any comments on the Salomon offerings, and/or any other suggestions for a suitable ski?


Thanks in advance.
post #2 of 20
PRs or 1080s sound fine. not sure what lengths they come in. tell us and maybe we can suggest two different lengths to demo.
post #3 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
PRs or 1080s sound fine. not sure what lengths they come in. tell us and maybe we can suggest two different lengths to demo.
Lengths for the PR are 165 and 175.

1080's are 151, 161, 171, and 181.


I've tried a pair of 170cm 1080's, and was very impressed - but think I'd like something shorter, just so they're easier to play with.

On the other hand, I'm not sure whether they'd have enough surface area/stability in 160
A 165cm 1080 *sounds* perfect . . . . but of course doesn't exist.


A real concern for me is the weight - the Atomics really are heavy. I'd like this next pair to be as light as possible . . . . not sure how the Pocket Rockets are going to be, though.
post #4 of 20
I think 161 will ave plenty of surface area for a guy your size. Also check out K2's Fujative and Public Enemy.
post #5 of 20
I weight about the same, just a couple of inches taller. Demoed 1080 in 161 about a month ago. Worked very well for me. What kind of stability are you looking for? They are not going to work as well as more carving-oriented skis at high speeds anyway.
post #6 of 20
161 in 1080

165 in PR
post #7 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by altu
I weight about the same, just a couple of inches taller. Demoed 1080 in 161 about a month ago. Worked very well for me. What kind of stability are you looking for? They are not going to work as well as more carving-oriented skis at high speeds anyway.
Well not on-piste stability - I have the Atomics for that, and I'd be surprised if any twin-tip could match them.

I won't just be using these skis in the park and *marked* powder runs. Skiing in the US is a rare thing for me . . . more often than not I'm going to be skiing in France. Not exactly backcountry, but difficult terrain where I might find myself straightlining or going rather fast. Stability on tricky terrain is what concerns me.
post #8 of 20
Then look at the Public Enemy instead of the 1080.

I have the 1080s but I would not want them as my only all mountain/everyday ski.

I demoed the PEs and I thought it was a great ski but I don't need 2 twin tips with similar dimensions.
post #9 of 20
I am 5' 5" and 140 lbs and ski a 165cm Pocket Rocket and really just love them. In fact I skied them for a week in Chamonix and enjoyed them everywhere. I might go for the 175cm if I were skiing deeper lighter snow all of the time, but I live in Washington State and so that isn't going to happen.


JonnyMo
post #10 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyMo
I am 5' 5" and 140 lbs and ski a 165cm Pocket Rocket and really just love them. In fact I skied them for a week in Chamonix and enjoyed them everywhere. I might go for the 175cm if I were skiing deeper lighter snow all of the time, but I live in Washington State and so that isn't going to happen.


JonnyMo


Will be demoing a pair of those in Vail at Easter, then
post #11 of 20
For the kind of skiing you described, I hated the 1080, but loved the PR. I also liked the Sugar Daddy, but it would be just about my last choice for park and pipe.
post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgp
Bit of background:

I'm 20 years old, about 5'5" and 140lbs.
I currently ski a pair of 160cm Atomic SX:11's. Fantastic ski on marked pistes, but I've found them a little heavy and unwieldy for off-piste and park stuff.

Consequently, I'm looking for another pair of skis that I can pull out if the conditions don't suit the Atomics.
I don't really think one pair of skis can do everything - but if I reckon that if I keep the SX:11's for on-piste ripping and get a suitable pair of twin-tips for the rest of it then that should serve me well for a while.


I've read good things about the Pocket Rockets and 1080's - but the length question is interesting for someone of my build.

Any comments on the Salomon offerings, and/or any other suggestions for a suitable ski?


Thanks in advance.
I would stay away from salomon. Spaceframe will not hold up for more than a season. The skis might look fine, but unless you enjoy skiing on something with the liveliness of cooked pasta, go with wood. The Pubs are great, as are the Troublemakers.
post #13 of 20
If you can get your hands on some discontinued Dynastar Little Big Fats they should suit your needs pretty well. They come in 158 and 168. I'd probably go with the 168's if I were you. My girlfriend loves her 158's, but she's only 5'4", 125. You're probably more aggressive too.
post #14 of 20
Let me put in my word for the Public Enimies although i dont know if they would be a good powder ski.... We dont got much of that here
post #15 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZacMan1987
I would stay away from salomon. Spaceframe will not hold up for more than a season. The skis might look fine, but unless you enjoy skiing on something with the liveliness of cooked pasta, go with wood. The Pubs are great, as are the Troublemakers.
. . . . So the Spaceframe skis have a limited life?

I hadn't heard that before, thanks for the heads up.

However . . . . is the life limited by time, or fatigue?
I'm not sure what you count as a season - but I'm a student in the UK, and for the foreseeable future I'll be lucky if I get three weeks skiing a year, purely due to time limits from studying.
Depending on how long the skis last and how they compare to the opposition, a limited fatigue life *might* not that be that big a deal . . . . more information required, though.


I'll see if I can find some Public Enemies to demo as well - any length recommendations for those?
post #16 of 20
Some of the Salomon spaceframes have a wood core, some do not. The PR does not have a wood core. People are referring to the fact that foam core skis "break down" faster than cores with wood. I had this happen to a pair of Salomon about 10 years ago. I got about 80 days out of them however. But, I am not expert in the lifetime of skis.

I used the PR at Snowbird last year and LOVED it. However, I also used the Rossi B3 that day and it was just as good, if not better in heavier snow. It is not as agile as the PR, but it is not a heavyweight either. Reviewers in the magazines LOVE the B3. Check out Ski Press magazine and Ski Canada magazine. Both are a bit hard to navigate but worth seeking out.
post #17 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billiam
Some of the Salomon spaceframes have a wood core, some do not. The PR does not have a wood core. People are referring to the fact that foam core skis "break down" faster than cores with wood. I had this happen to a pair of Salomon about 10 years ago. I got about 80 days out of them however. But, I am not expert in the lifetime of skis.

I used the PR at Snowbird last year and LOVED it. However, I also used the Rossi B3 that day and it was just as good, if not better in heavier snow. It is not as agile as the PR, but it is not a heavyweight either. Reviewers in the magazines LOVE the B3. Check out Ski Press magazine and Ski Canada magazine. Both are a bit hard to navigate but worth seeking out.
Yep, but the B3 is a proper big mountain ski. I'd really like something that will work OK as a park ski as well.


Any word on these Public Enemies? Length/performance in powder?
post #18 of 20
If you want some reviews on the PE's search the fourms for public enemies. i made a topic of that a month or two ago. i ended up buying them because i heard that they did eveything, and they were RELLY cheap for a ski that got such good reviews.
post #19 of 20
i have the same height and weight. I bought myself a 161cm 1080 this season. they are great on fresh powder. last week i tried them in some soft, deep, crud. since it is light - i felt it did not cut through crud as well as a perhaps a heavier ski (such as a salomon pilot hot) might have. has anybody else experienced this.

of course - my crud skiing technique (or the lack thereof) might have had something to do with it also.
post #20 of 20
The pocket rockets ski "short" so I'd say you should demo a 165 and a 175. There's lots of PRs out there in ebayland btw
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Park/Powder skis for a lightweight?