EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › K2 Enemy Question: Red Black Death's Head Graphics, 2003? (Need Help)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

K2 Enemy Question: Red Black Death's Head Graphics, 2003? (Need Help)

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
So I was cruising the cut out stacks at the local Sports Authority yesterday and found a few deals on K2's. But the most intriguing thing I found were a pair of what I think were 2003 (?) k2 Enemy skis. They have the red black death's head and wings logo on them. Side cut was listed at 109/75/97 with 14m radius, but I think it looks more like a 20m radius since they are pretty straight. They called them a twin tip pipe and park ski but they looked more like a directional twin tip to me. And they were selling them in the wrapper for $ 130.

The skis were very light, and were a over all fairly stiff with slightly softer tips and tails. They flexed a lot like my little big fats (legend 8800's) so I was obviously intrigued. They also had the 04/05 public enemy for a few more dollars which flexed again stiff in the mid section but a lot softer in the tips and tails, the PE's had more of a real ollieband feeling to them. So this got me to thinking that the 2003 version might actually be a little better in an all moutain context than the 04/05's.

I have tried to research them about all I can find is an older design without the death's head logo and some posting indicated that older version of these skis tend to delam, but then the posters were mostly skiing them in the park and I don't see these as real park skis. I think they would be really interesting mounted with a light binding like a Salomon 811 Ti used in an all mountain put em over the shoulders and hike for terrain context, but also bumps due to the softer tail and tip. I have some concerns about the powder float due to the thinner profile. But on the plus side I expect that they would carve better than the '05 PE's due to the slightly stiffer profile and what looks like a slightly narrower sidecut.

I can get the 2003 black red version in a 183cm for $ 250 mounted with the 811 ti (solly's lightest binding), but I can also get the 04/05 public enemies in a 179cm with a rocket 912 ti mounted for $ 365 (and I've heard a lot of good things about the '05 pe's). By way of background I'm 6'3" 225lbs and while I ski almost anything anywhere anytime, I like to go fast steep and deep best. I am not worried about form or levels and I don't do pipe and park.

Anybody out there know these skis and have an opinion one way or the other? Or should I save my money for something else (I've been thinking about a randonee setup instead). At $ 250 mounted I know I can't go too far wrong, but would love to hear from anyone who has actually skied the things.
post #2 of 22

That's a good pair...

Pick those suckers up... I got mine for $175.00 at the beginning of the season this year and I love them. They have picked up the slack left by my High Society's and Pocket Rockets. You're right- this is much more of an all mountain ski than a park ski. It has a pseudo- twin tip, but it rides a little bit funny switch because of the big shovel and moderately narrow tail. Still, it will get the job done. Just don't land any big hits switch on them in the powder. Speaking of powder, they actually perform all right in it. I had them in some deeper stuff at A-basin this year right after I murdered my rockets in the park. They won't give you that total float of something over 90 underfoot, but they do all right for what they are. That big shovel keeps the tips up admirably.
They don't have the progressive flex of the new public enemy, and they are quite turney. They will carve some smooth, sweet turns for you if you just put them on edge and let them ride.
Now the downside: They are damn light. Not too good for going mach 9 over variable conditions. You'll get bounced around a little bit. This is a maneuverable ski for going around obstacles, not through them. Great for squirreling around in the trees or through softer bumps. The lightness translates into a ski that is pretty good for throwing spins off medium hits in the park. This is about as far as their parkiness goes though. Not good for the pipe. Too hard.
I haven't had any big problems with the topsheet, but I did stomp on something last weekend at Vail that mashed the edge just a little bit right under my foot. The base was not compromised, and it will probably just tune out with a grind or two. I don't notice it when I ski them.
I ride my skis damn hard and estimate I have 20+ days on the enemys this year. They are keeping together well. It would be a sin not to pick those up for that price. Get yourself down there. If you're out west and want a mid-fat that is a little bit more nu school than many of the others, this is it!

My stats:
good skier. (I don't buy into the ratings.)
5'10''
160 Lb.
183 cm Enemy.
Look P14 bindings.
post #3 of 22
Viking,
I bought a pair of these for my son a couple of months ago from Garts/SA. First, check the price. The pair we got was marked $129.47. The .47 got you another 30% off so they were something like $105 out the door. I did some research on the delam issue and most of what I found refered to the black model of earlier years. Heck, it's a $100 ski, why worry. I had some used demo bindings laying about so I put those on. He really likes them. He's a level 6-7 13 yr. old who likes to go fast. He says they carve far better than his old skis (Volkl G3) which says a lot. When I ski behind him he's laying railroad tracks with them. I tried them for part of one run (demo binding) but they are 173s and were kind of short for me. That said they did seem to be a better than average ski and a great deal. I was tempted to pick up a pair of 183s for myself but I've got plenty right now. Here's a link to some old reviews.

http://www.outdoorreview.com/cat/ski...x.aspx#reviews

Steve
post #4 of 22
Shoot, if they're that cheap at the end of this season, I may just pick up another pair. One of those guys in those old reviews in the link above says they don't turn that quick. Baloney. These are some of the quickest turning skis I have ever been on. They are fencing foils. Wish K2 was still making them.
post #5 of 22
I skied those tele for a few seasons out east. They were perfect! Soft, but still held an edge. I ended up getting some world piste on proform, and giving them to a friend. Worst mistake ever. I thought the Enemies were better.
I think they were out of the old explorer mold w/an added twin.
post #6 of 22
Pete,
Last time I was in Garts in the Springs they had moved them to the A list rack from the closeout area and wanted something like $219. It's all a game with them. There were at least 6-8 pair left, most were 183s. When I got the pair for my son most were marked $219 but one pair of 183s was $129.47. I took a pair of 173s and the low priced 183s to the register and they honored the lower price and then gave me the 30% off. Those reviews are just random consumers, they turn plenty quick.

Steve
post #7 of 22
Thanks Steve.

I'll get on the horn and see. Maybe I'll be making the drive down to the ol' Springs... it's been awhile.
post #8 of 22
Pete, it was the Garts on N. Academy.


One more thing, when I drilled them they are a wood core ski so should last a while.

Steve
post #9 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by viking kaj
So I was cruising the cut out stacks at the local Sports Authority yesterday and found a few deals on K2's. But the most intriguing thing I found were a pair of what I think were 2003 (?) k2 Enemy skis. They have the red black death's head and wings logo on them. Side cut was listed at 109/75/97 with 14m radius, but I think it looks more like a 20m radius since they are pretty straight. They called them a twin tip pipe and park ski but they looked more like a directional twin tip to me. And they were selling them in the wrapper for $ 130.

The skis were very light, and were a over all fairly stiff with slightly softer tips and tails. They flexed a lot like my little big fats (legend 8800's) so I was obviously intrigued. They also had the 04/05 public enemy for a few more dollars which flexed again stiff in the mid section but a lot softer in the tips and tails, the PE's had more of a real ollieband feeling to them. So this got me to thinking that the 2003 version might actually be a little better in an all moutain context than the 04/05's.

I have tried to research them about all I can find is an older design without the death's head logo and some posting indicated that older version of these skis tend to delam, but then the posters were mostly skiing them in the park and I don't see these as real park skis. I think they would be really interesting mounted with a light binding like a Salomon 811 Ti used in an all mountain put em over the shoulders and hike for terrain context, but also bumps due to the softer tail and tip. I have some concerns about the powder float due to the thinner profile. But on the plus side I expect that they would carve better than the '05 PE's due to the slightly stiffer profile and what looks like a slightly narrower sidecut.

I can get the 2003 black red version in a 183cm for $ 250 mounted with the 811 ti (solly's lightest binding), but I can also get the 04/05 public enemies in a 179cm with a rocket 912 ti mounted for $ 365 (and I've heard a lot of good things about the '05 pe's). By way of background I'm 6'3" 225lbs and while I ski almost anything anywhere anytime, I like to go fast steep and deep best. I am not worried about form or levels and I don't do pipe and park.

Anybody out there know these skis and have an opinion one way or the other? Or should I save my money for something else (I've been thinking about a randonee setup instead). At $ 250 mounted I know I can't go too far wrong, but would love to hear from anyone who has actually skied the things.

where is this store? im feeling robbed. I got them on ebay for around 200 shipping included.
post #10 of 22
My son has the 161 enemy's (03) and has skied the 159 PE's (04). He likes both but prefers the enemy because it not as stiff & more lively.

I've skied both and prefer the PE's stiffer flex which makes it a better all mtn ski, but not as good in the park.

At your weight (235lbs), I'd say spend the extra $100 and get the PE cuz you'll over power the E's. Esp if you like to go as fast. On the other hand, if you ready have the 8800's why do you need something else that is similar? Why not go for something completely different.
post #11 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard
My son has the 161 enemy's (03) and has skied the 159 PE's (04). He likes both but prefers the enemy because it not as stiff & more lively.

I've skied both and prefer the PE's stiffer flex which makes it a better all mtn ski, but not as good in the park.

At your weight (235lbs), I'd say spend the extra $100 and get the PE cuz you'll over power the E's. Esp if you like to go as fast. On the other hand, if you ready have the 8800's why do you need something else that is similar? Why not go for something completely different.
Actually I'm 225lbs but at my size I'm not sure that the 10lbs matters.

Wizard, your information above seems counter to my bend test, I would place the Enemy as slightly stiffer than the PE's, especially in the tail. Also I have read a number of posts on the PE that indicate that high speed is a drawback which is not unexpected given the true ollieband. Finally, where I was looking the Enemy came in 10cm increments, so are you sure this isn't a 163cm instead of 161?

My other skis include a race stock 193cm Atomic GS:11, a 186cm Salomon Scream Hot Pilot, and a 175cm Volant FB, which are all pretty different. I am also in the market for a pair of race stock slaloms in a 165 for front side short turns, and thinking about getting a randonee setup, but those are different stories.

I have the 8800/lbf's in a 168cm because I got a deal on them. I like the shorter length for trees and tight chutes so I wouldn't change them, but sometimes I wish I had gone a little longer. Right now they are my go to ski when hiking for turns, but with the wider mid section and side cut they don't seem to edge as quickly on the groomed.

So I AM looking for a similar but slightly longer ski with more side cut to put over my shoulder to hike for turns. I have the Volants for heavy powder duty but I wouldn't want to hike with these (or with an M:eX for example). At under five lb's a ski mounted the Enemy/811's combo could be an interesting alternative. Eiscl comment that he had these telemounted doesn't surprise me, I also thought about mounting these for randonee given the weight.

Thanks to everyone for all your comments, everything so far is confirming my suspicion that this is a "sleeper" ski that didn't catch on and was then obliterated by the success of the PE. If anyone has more info keep it coming.
post #12 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by onstar
where is this store? im feeling robbed. I got them on ebay for around 200 shipping included.
Pm'd you.

Kaj
post #13 of 22
I found the same pair at Sports Authority(Sport Mart) for $219.00. Size 183.
I also was curious because I had been reading the positive feedback on the PE's and I am going to demo them in Mammoth in a few weeks. I didn't know anything about the Enemy and came here to find out more. Seems at my size 6'3 215 and level 7 I may go to the PE's if I like them. I know that they will be having a sale in a few weeks that should drop the price down 30% so who knows maybe that compulsive buyer may come out in me.
post #14 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by valleydude
I found the same pair at Sports Authority(Sport Mart) for $219.00. Size 183.
I also was curious because I had been reading the positive feedback on the PE's and I am going to demo them in Mammoth in a few weeks. I didn't know anything about the Enemy and came here to find out more. Seems at my size 6'3 215 and level 7 I may go to the PE's if I like them. I know that they will be having a sale in a few weeks that should drop the price down 30% so who knows maybe that compulsive buyer may come out in me.
Mine were listed at $ 219 with a 40% end of season discount, so keep watching for the discount to take effect where you live.

I am skiing these for the first time this weekend in SLC and I will get back to everyone with a quick review when I have had the chance to try them in a variety of conditions.

Kaj
post #15 of 22
I also picked these up last season (for $125 at Garts), mounted them up with some old bindings I had and took them out for a few spins last season. I absolutely hated them and they haven't been out at all this season. I honestly believe the reason I hate them is mostly due to the binding mount position (they're mounted at the midsole mark, but they should've been mounted BoF). As they are right now they have absolutely no edge hold and the tails wash out really easily. I tried re-setting the bevels to 1/3, but it didn't help. Looking at the sidecut and flex pattern, I was really hoping they would be a decent mogul ski to be used when snow conditions are thin - oh well.
post #16 of 22
Thread Starter 

Mini Review

So here's the one word review after 3 days in Salt Lake skiing Sundance, Alta and Park City respectively:

Schweet.

This is one superb little ski, if you find a deal on them grab 'em.

Conditions included everything from 12 inches of Sierra Cement (powder forming under unusually warm conditions at Alta), soft powder, skied out powder in spring conditions, to hard pack with some ice patches. My stats are 6'3 225lbs, I ski anything, boot was a lange comp 130, binding solly 811ti.

Powder:
Great float in light powder, up to at least in 6-8 inches. Worked very well even in the steeps. And, at under 10lbs with bindings for the pair, these are great in a hike for turns context. Best day of the three was today on Jupiter at Park City in about six inches of Utah's most famous, a very smooth ride with just the right degree of float in the trees and steeps.

Groomed:
Held an edge well, even in somewhat icy conditions. Nice combination of stiffness and softness, quick edge to edge with good hold and carving. These were a significant improvement over the Dynstar lbf's in this catagory, while still retaining good soft snow performance, which is what I was looking for. While these things don't have the "rocket on rails" performance of my GS skis, I still got them up to 35-40mph on totally groomed at Sundance without feeling a lack of confidence or control.

Bumps:
These have to be amongst the best, if not the best, bump ski I have ever been on. Powder bumps were just a pure pleasure. The tails have just the right degree of stiffness and softness so that you don't hang up and can continue to finish the turn without losing contact (modified twin tip helps). Coming from the flatland my lungs and legs are not in shape at present to zipper a run at altitude, but my guess is that they would do this easily. Noodler, get yours remounted with a nice light binding and try them again, I believe you will like them better.

Crud:
These are pretty light skis, they did ok in moderate sun-softened crud at Sundance, but in the 12 inches of "sierra cement" at Alta they lacked float (probably due to the narrow waist). The tips kept sinking and I finally planted one in a big wet powder corniche that I thought was made of softer snow with serious adverse consequences. For serious wet soft snow applications the lbf with its better float was vastly superior.

Corduroy, Death Cookies, Chicken Heads, etc:
No chance to try under these conditions due to the big powder dump and warm conditions, but since these are medium stiff but fairly light ski, my expectation is that you could do it, but they would not be the first ski I would go to.

Comments:
Got several comments from others on where I got my skis of the positive type, which really surprised me. Apparently these things have a little cult following. One of admirers indicated that this was a twin tip modification of the old k2 explorer, don't know if that's true or not?

Negatives:
Lacks the stability of a fatter ski in really soft wet snow conditions, would not be a great everyday ski for the Sierra or Cascades, but then I'd probably want something like a Volant or a M:ex if I was skiing that stuff regularly anyway. Also, a little light at speed and can get knocked around a little, nothing serious but if I knew I was only going to be skiing groomed all day I might want something with a little titantium and a beta backbone.

Verdict:
These are a great little ski in an all mountain context. While I want to run them some more to be sure, my initial read is that I will be reaching for these a lot more often than my solly scream hots especially since so many expert runs seem to be bumped up these days. With an additional 5-8mm under foot and a metal layer or two, these could be my perfect ski. This makes me think I need to demo a pair of the new K2 Shuksan's to see how they stack up. I'm also hearing good things about the Sickbird/Scratch BC which sound like they have a similar profile. An older pair of AK Enemy's could be interesting too, since I understand they are a little fatter. But definitely a steal at $130, if anyone finds a pair out there grab them.
post #17 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by viking kaj
Comments:
Got several comments from others on where I got my skis of the positive type, which really surprised me. Apparently these things have a little cult following. One of admirers indicated that this was a twin tip modification of the old k2 explorer, don't know if that's true or not?
Just noticed Eiscl's comment above which tends to confirm this, sorry for not noticing earlier.

Kaj
post #18 of 22
Thanks for the great review. Now I really can't wait to get mine in the mail next week.
post #19 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by poorcollegestudent
Thanks for the great review. Now I really can't wait to get mine in the mail next week.
FYI, you are getting the Public Enemy. He has the Enemy. There is a difference. But I am sure you're going to be happy.
post #20 of 22
Kaj,
Glad you're happy with them. Quite the deal in the days of $1000+ MSRPs.

Steve
post #21 of 22
You can get 2005/2006 K2 Public Enemies for <$200 on eBay/online right now if you look around. The Enemy discussed above is pretty old 2001/02 era I think. PE has a more modern shape/beefier construction and wider waist (85mm).
post #22 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler
I also picked these up last season (for $125 at Garts), mounted them up with some old bindings I had and took them out for a few spins last season. I absolutely hated them and they haven't been out at all this season. I honestly believe the reason I hate them is mostly due to the binding mount position (they're mounted at the midsole mark, but they should've been mounted BoF). As they are right now they have absolutely no edge hold and the tails wash out really easily. I tried re-setting the bevels to 1/3, but it didn't help. Looking at the sidecut and flex pattern, I was really hoping they would be a decent mogul ski to be used when snow conditions are thin - oh well.

Sounds like they are too short for you. What length did you get? For a given length, twin tips ski about 5-7cm shorter than regular skis. If you go too short you will not have enough edge and the skis will wash out.
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 › K2 Enemy Question: Red Black Death's Head Graphics, 2003? (Need Help)