or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Teenager ski recommendations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Teenager ski recommendations - Page 2

post #31 of 43
Thread Starter 
I'm just curious as to durability of the spaceframe contruction of the newer 1080's vs the older ones? The newer spaceframe ones are a bit wider at the waist (80mm).
post #32 of 43
This is the son again...

The problem with the space frame and the foam core is that after skiing on the skis for a while, the foam and the spaceframe have a tendency to lose thier rebound and liveliness. I have heard of a number of people with this happening.

The public enemies have adressed all the problems of the original enemy de-lam problems. I have not heard of anyone dissapointed in the public enemies, and i havent heard of any de-lam problems of yet.
post #33 of 43
I'd hesitate getting any skier you describe as aggressive the 1080 as an only ski. I'm 16 145 # and have them in 177. They are nice when there is pow, but for most skiing they are too soft for me.
post #34 of 43
Thread Starter 
I havent seen the Public Enemy around here. But last year's Enemy is pretty cheap. Its not as fat as the new PE, but looks like a good ski for the money. Anyone know if it is wood or foam core????
post #35 of 43
I'm fairly certain K2 PE is a wood core.
post #36 of 43
Both the enemies and the public enemies have wood cores.

The public enemies are also very inexpensive if you look.

[ October 05, 2003, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: MammothCruzer ]
post #37 of 43
Thread Starter 
Managed to find some PE's locally. They look like a nice ski. Quite a bit stiffer flex than the 1080 or Scratch FS. Looks like its quite durable.

Any suggestions for length when going for a twin tip? Should one go longer or ????

My son is 5'5" (~165cm) 115 lbs, so it looks like either a 160 or 170 would work.
post #38 of 43
I'm in the same boat, my logic (twisted) sez go longer cuz it's center mounted. Ski shop guy sez shorter cuz, well just beacause.

I ski a 174. My choices are 169 or 179. I'm leaning toward 179 for various reasons. Though I wonder if the shorter length would be better for tricks (less ski to manage during helis, on rails, etc.).

I don't know, tell us what you come up with.
post #39 of 43
I need to get my own name on this site...

Well, I dont know about the 1080s, but the rossi scratch are not perfectly center mounted, the enemies are definatly not center mounted, and the public enemies are mounted exactly 7 cm back from center.

If you are skiing 174s, then you could go either way. you may want to check whether your skis are 174 tip to tail, or 174 running length (the length of ptex actually on the snow). k2 measures running length, and I beleive rossi does too, but I am pretty sure that salomon measures tip to tail (the 171 1080s I skied seemed a lot shorter).

going to a 169 over a 179 takes off this much ski depending on the resolution of your monitor:

[.................................................. ............................................]

This will affect swing weight, and make it easier to spin in the park (please dont call them helis unless you are in a mogul comp). It will also make the ski turn sharper. some people like a longer, more solid ski for rails, but thats all personal preference.

Help us out here, what do you weigh and how tall are you Xdog?

Also, shop people dont always know what they are talking about. they are trying to sell you a ski, not help you buy one.

[ October 06, 2003, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: MammothCruzer ]
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally posted by MammothCruzer:
I need to get my own name on this site...

>For now, we will call you MINI-CRUZER

Well, I dont know about the 1080s, but the rossi scratch are not perfectly center mounted, the enemies are definatly not center mounted, and the public enemies are mounted exactly 7 cm back from center.

>My mistaken assumption, thanks for clearing that up.

If you are skiing 174s, then you could go either way. you may want to check whether your skis are 174 tip to tail, or 174 running length (the length of ptex actually on the snow). k2 measures running length, and I beleive rossi does too, but I am pretty sure that salomon measures tip to tail (the 171 1080s I skied seemed a lot shorter).

>Amazing, in all my skulking around ski shops and shows and reading from magazines and websites, I never even herad or considered that manufacturers measure skis differently. This is news to me. I went immediately to my closet and measured 3 pairs of skis:

Head Cyber 177's, actual 177.5 tip to tail (t2t)
Salomon 169's, actual 165.2 t2t (figure that one out?)
K2 Escape 3500 153, actual 153.1 t2t

So I don't know what to make of this, as the K2 I have is measured t2t, not running length. Could it be that they specifically measure the twin tips that way?

going to a 169 over a 179 takes off this much ski depending on the resolution of your monitor:

[.................................................. ............................................]

This will affect swing weight, and make it easier to spin in the park (please dont call them helis unless you are in a mogul comp). It will also make the ski turn sharper. some people like a longer, more solid ski for rails, but thats all personal preference.

>'Scuse me, 360's. I was just being modest, I really want them to practice my switch 540's . But seriously, I want the ski for about equal reasons, 50% park and pipe, and 50% as a "powder" ski. I travel enough to justify a semi- fat ski, but not like a full blown Monster or Big Stix. I thought this would offer a good middle ground.

Help us out here, what do you weigh and how tall are you Xdog?

>5'11", 180#, level 7 skier.

Also, shop people dont always know what they are talking about. they are trying to sell you a ski, not help you buy one.

>Amen to that, especially here around Noo Yawk Sh!tty [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]
post #41 of 43
Mini-cruzer

Xdog I think you are right about the running length, t2t thing about K2's measuring. On the K2 forums, the manager of the factory team said that K2 measures running length. But your measurements definatly don't lie

Im sorry if I came off a bit picky about the 360 thing... Thats just a pet peeve of mine . The publics are built as an all mountain ski.

I am nearly 6' 135 and going for 169... i would go 179 if i were you, espesially if k2 measures t2t.

[ October 07, 2003, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: MammothCruzer ]
post #42 of 43
Quote:
Originally posted by MammothCruzer:
Mini-cruzer

Im sorry if I came off a bit picky about the 360 thing... Thats just a pet peeve of mine . The publics are built as an all mountain ski.

> Oh no, not at all, believe me I can be quite picky when it comes to terminology myself. So can many people on this forum. Matter of fact, I started a thread called Biggest Skiing Peeve over this past summer and it ended up being 3 or 4 pages long. So you're not alone.

I am nearly 6' 135 and going for 169... i would go 179 if i were you, espesially if k2 measures t2t.
> Whoa, did you just have a major growth spurt? If I head out to Mammoth, I'm looking you up so I can buy you a sandwich!

But anyway, I guess I'll let that be the deciding factor, if it's 179 t2t, I'll go with that. If it's 179 running length, I'll drop to 169.

Thanx!
post #43 of 43
I measured up the skis... turns out that a 169 public enemy is the nearly the same running lenght as a 175 pocket rocket and the 173 enemy.

k2 measures t2t... and with the pe it was, well like this:

<------------------------------------------->
\__________________________/

and not the whole length of the ptex. The actual running length is surprisingly right about 147 cm.

Wierd isnt it? Wouldn't it be so much easier if everyone just measured the running length from the beginning?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Teenager ski recommendations