or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Burnin Luv Question

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
I've got a question for all those women burnin up the slopes on their Luv's.

Do any of you ski the woods?

I fell in LOVE with a pair of these ski's after demoing 8 other ski's. They apparently are so popular that I had to buy the demo pair in order to get the length I needed - 160. I burned up the slopes at our local mountain, and enjoyed every turn I took on them on my recent trip to Steamboat.

Last week-end I was in VT skiing Sugarbush/MRG and I struggled with these ski's in the woods. They just felt looooonnnng and.... didn't want to turn for me.

Just wondering if anyone else is feeling the same way?

Maybe I need to buy the matching poles in order to get them to play nice?
post #2 of 20
Hairybones (epic name) wife is on them and she skis trees and bumps all the time with us. She is small 5' 100lbs on 153cm. We have to let her in the bumps first because she always beats us down anyways. She luv's her Burnin Luvs.

How tall and what is your weight?
post #3 of 20
Thread Starter 
wow... that was fast!

I'm 5'4" and weigh about 144. I've always skied a 160 length ski. Bumps are no problem..... tight trees were tough.

Guess I'm just going to have to keep skiing em till I can get them to behave.
post #4 of 20
I will chime in for my wife since she doesn't post here:

She is 5'6'' and about 150-155. She demoed a 160 burnin luv last weekend at Alta and loved them for everything. We even went on the 'bear trails' (the narrow kids trails through the woods) and she did fine. She had never skied anything like that before, and thought the skis were good for that.

Maybe the 160 is a little long for you?
post #5 of 20
Maggie, I don't mean to sound harsh here but it sounds to me like a few lessons are in order. I think alot of us here still take lessons every now and then. I had one myself back in January. It changed my skiing for the better. It amazing what you can learn if you want to.

I would think the 160cm is right for you. But shorter is better, in some things.
post #6 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity
Maggie, I don't mean to sound harsh here but it sounds to me like a few lessons are in order. I think alot of us here still take lessons every now and then. I had one myself back in January. It changed my skiing for the better. It amazing what you can learn if you want to.

I would think the 160cm is right for you. But shorter is better, in some things.

I will attest for Max..if fact, his instrutor was a 5'1" woman. She is an Australian Spitfire (ex-national DH'er from downunder), who also worked with my wife. And yes he skied better after than he did before (not that he didn't ske well then).

But I wll suggest NOT skiing with Max, unless you want to come back injured .
post #7 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Capacity
Maggie, I don't mean to sound harsh here but it sounds to me like a few lessons are in order. I think alot of us here still take lessons every now and then. I had one myself back in January. It changed my skiing for the better. It amazing what you can learn if you want to.

I would think the 160cm is right for you. But shorter is better, in some things.
I'll try not to sound harsh hear either......

Lessons - I take them every year, multiple times per year and sometimes even do video analysis. I also run with ski club members who are instructors and happy to give a few pointers here and there.

I consider myself a solid advanced intermediate skier - looking to improve all the time.

I was questioning those who have run on the burnin luvs to see if they found any handling differences similar to mine. The review for this ski says:

"Female specific version of Crossfire, and a great choice for strong female skiers with good modern skills, who spends most of the time on the groomed, but gets off piste occasionally."

If woods are off piste, then these ski's should be just fine for my skiing ability, although occasionally is more like 50%. I used to tip toe through these woods on my Head Cyber Lites in a 160 so I was surprised at how long the the K2's seemed. Maybe I just need to get used to them, maybe I need to find another ski to play in the woods with, maybe I need to change my technique because they are a stiffer ski than I'm used to. Not sure.
post #8 of 20
In the woods you will tend to skid and hop turn a bit more...maybe the tune is off? Maybe start with de-tuning the tips and tails a bit.
post #9 of 20
My wife demoed these in a 160 yesterday and she really liked them on groomers but then she took them into some crud/powder/ice/icey bumps/slush and didn't love them.

Like the guys above said, it's really a matter of the skiers ability.

My wife is still learning to ski ungroomed crap and bumps so you mix those together with some trees in the way and look out.

The skis are not made for serious offpiste conditions because of their sidecut and waist. They have a 68 waist which does not float as well as their new model the Lotta Luv which is going to have a 78 waist.
post #10 of 20
Do Bearesses ski in the woods?
Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, needed something to make me laugh, even if it is at my own dumb joke!:

The Luvs are awesome, but they are a bit stiff. Like xrisisi, I found them better for going wicked fast on groomed, than I did for skiing crud and bumps. Perhaps their stiffness is a hindrance in the woods.
post #11 of 20
Thread Starter 
"My wife is still learning to ski ungroomed crap and bumps so you mix those together with some trees in the way and look out."

I'm an east coast skier so ungroomed crap and ice are my norm! In fact I LIKED the burnin luv's because they are heavier than my old ski's and so handle better in the crap.

"The skis are not made for serious offpiste conditions because of their sidecut and waist. They have a 68 waist which does not float as well as their new model the Lotta Luv which is going to have a 78 waist."

The shaping on these is what's making me think about demoing The Bandit B2's on the same VT trails over Easter to see if it's me or the ski. The Bandit B1's were the ski's I was going to "settle" for if I couldn't get the K2's. The dimensions K2: 109/68/99 the Bandit's: 113/76/103 I don't really know enough about ski's to know how the cut will effect my skiing.

I DO know that when I demo'd the Bandit B1's in a 160 they felt REALLY short.
post #12 of 20
Hairybones, wife, we have nicknamed her "Goddess of the Forest" because of her Burnin Luvs.
post #13 of 20
Thread Starter 
Goddess of the Forest...... man, she get's NICE nicknames.... they call me, Angel of Death or EB - could stand for Evil B**** or Energizer Bunny depending on if you enjoy following me or not.
post #14 of 20
The 160 Burnin' Luvs seem longer than they are to you, because all 2004/05 K2 skis feature now a new low profile tip geometry which increases the skis' running surface by 7 cm. Therefore your 160 cm ski can actually be compared to a 167 cm 2003/04 K2 ski (or any other ski with standard tip geometry).
post #15 of 20
Might sound like a simple solution, plant your poles every turn in the woods and in deeper snow, skis follow. Linda's really light, but runs five miles a day and works out with weight so leg strength comes into play. I have honestly never seen a ski fit a person better than the burnin luvs and Linda.
post #16 of 20
hey all,

I ski the Burnin Luvs in everything. To me they are the most agile/nimble skis that I have ever owned/skied. I am 5'2 and I ski the 153s.

They are terrific in the bumps, crud and even deeper stuff. I had them with me for several days of fresh snow in CO and they were a bundle of fun.

My guess is that if you only like them on groomers, then they are probably too stiff a ski for you.

I have been interested in all of the "Burning Luv ski talk" this winter. I had always bragged about how we women don't get all egomaniacal about skis/skiing like the guys. Yet, this season, it seems like everyone wants to be on the Burnin Luv. The whole LUV line is a good one - and, the skis are even all pretty/cool looking.

The best ski is the one that's best for you.

My two cents,
kiersten
post #17 of 20
One of my ski buddies has 2 pair of Burning Luvs, one mounted for the area and one for the backcountry. Both are 160. She's 5-0, 95 lbs and tears it up, trees, bumps, whatever. The snow here is often deep enough and soft enough that the 153 is lacking in float. She luvs em.
post #18 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by klkaye
hey all,

I ski the Burnin Luvs in everything. To me they are the most agile/nimble skis that I have ever owned/skied. I am 5'2 and I ski the 153s.

They are terrific in the bumps, crud and even deeper stuff. I had them with me for several days of fresh snow in CO and they were a bundle of fun.

My guess is that if you only like them on groomers, then they are probably too stiff a ski for you.

I have been interested in all of the "Burning Luv ski talk" this winter. I had always bragged about how we women don't get all egomaniacal about skis/skiing like the guys. Yet, this season, it seems like everyone wants to be on the Burnin Luv. The whole LUV line is a good one - and, the skis are even all pretty/cool looking.

The best ski is the one that's best for you.

My two cents,
kiersten
Thanks for your two cents Kiersten! I like them on the groomers, in the crud, the bumps and deep snow. (I like them sam I am) I just had a hard time with them in tight trees at Mad River Glen in VT. I'll just have to keep on playing with them till we're comfortable with each other. Shucks, a reason to ski even more!
post #19 of 20
Maggie,

If you like them all around but struggle with one condition, then I have to agree with the others who suggest it's the skier technique and not the ski.

Tight trees can be nerve-wracking, so it's possible that you get mentally defensive which can translate to a defensive physical posture/stance.

You're right - you just have to ski more ... awwww what a shame! LOL

kiersten
post #20 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggie
I like them on the groomers, in the crud, the bumps and deep snow. (I like them sam I am) I just had a hard time with them in tight trees at Mad River Glen in VT.
More woods, more woods, more woods.

I don't think any of us were doing our best in the woods that weekend. You just need more time on them. Don't think too much because "If you think, You'll stink", go with the flow.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion