EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Where to from here? k2?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Where to from here? k2?

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
I thought I knew what I wanted in a ski last year. Now I'm confused.

I ski 10-15 days per year. 56 years old, excellent condition. 5'10-155lbs.

Have skied for over 40 years. My ski progression has been;

Rossi FM, Rossi 4s (black and silver), Rossi 4s (green), Elan MBX, this ski was the most profound difference I ever had in a pair of skis, true carved turns 193 length, Volkl, this ski just says Motion on the back and Volkl on the front, gold and black, 184 cm. This ski was a great carver and held an edge on ice like no ski before, at 184 is was still a bit long. So.........

Volkl 5 Stars, 168 cm. On paper, these should have been perfect. Not so. I could not ski these to save my life. Why? They were too stiff in the tails, I think. So sell the 5 Stars on eBay and rent K2 Recons. Great ski. fun on the groomers, crud, and on the few days of powder. Waahooo!!

Telluride, no Recons to rent, try the Crossfire, good on the groomers, nimble in the bumps, no powder to try. The current idea is to pick up a pair of the Crossfires for groomers and a pair of K2 Outlaws for deeper snow. This will be my first season in the California mountains with trips to Utah and perhaps back into southern Colorado.

Am I fooling myself on having two pairs of skis? Should I go with Recons and call it a day. Any other skis to look at before I pull the trigger? The lenght chart has me on 167's for both skis.

Thanks dgsaz
post #2 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgsaz View Post
Volkl 5 Stars, 168 cm. On paper, these should have been perfect. Not so. I could not ski these to save my life. Why? They were too stiff in the tails, I think.
Hello and welcome dgsaz. Can you tell us a bit more about what the 5-stars wouldn't do for you?
post #3 of 14
dgsaz:

You have a good plan. Two skis will always do a better job than one because the "tweener" (Recon) will compromise on both sides of the equation. If you like the feel of a K2, then there is no reason to look any further than the CF and the OL. You have already skied two of them and you know you like them so don't confuse yourself.

SJ
post #4 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgsaz View Post
Am I fooling myself on having two pairs of skis?
The necessary number of skis is determined by the formula N+1, where "N" is the number of pairs you currently have. This is the wrong place to be talked out of having multiple pairs of skis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgsaz View Post
Should I go with Recons and call it a day. Any other skis to look at before I pull the trigger? The lenght chart has me on 167's for both skis.
I ski in the Northeast. I own the recons, but I save them for the out-West trips or powder days here. They're not quite nimble enough for the conditions I normally encounter (narrow-ish hardpacked trails).

The length coming out to 167 seems a little strange to me. Most ski their powder / deep snow skis relatively long, as the length helps with float and with absorbing terrain variations. If you go with having two pairs, I'd definitely get the recon's a little longer. I'm about your size, and I ski the recon in a 174. I wouldn't want to go any shorter then that for deep-snow conditions.
post #5 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
Hello and welcome dgsaz. Can you tell us a bit more about what the 5-stars wouldn't do for you?
Without exageration, I could barely get down the mountian. I could not tutn at high or low speed, could not hold an edge. It was as if the skis or me were under and evil spell. I have NEVER found a more difficult ski to turn in my llife. I even thought the tune or binding placement could have been off. The chap who bought them had no complaints. Fo figure
post #6 of 14
As an additional thought Re: length........

The 167 is probably right. K2's run long. That is to say a K2 167 is longer than any 170 on my retail rack. With your light weight, I don't see the need for a 174 (really about a 177 or 178).

SJ
post #7 of 14
5'10"...155 lb. 167 or 174? I really don't know how to ask this question but..you have many years of skiing under your belt (I also had FM's), do you ski like a light 5'10" or a tall 155 lb? You skied the MBX in a 193 and if I recall, they were a long 193, I personally didn't line that ski but if you skied that in a 193...but if the the Recon is a long 167....more like a 170...hmmmm let me ponder some more.
post #8 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese View Post
You skied the MBX in a 193 and if I recall, they were a long 193, I personally didn't line that ski but if you skied that in a 193...but if the the Recon is a long 167....more like a 170...hmmmm let me ponder some more.
Which MBX, tho? 14PL, C-series skied quite short. 16,26,R3 - meh but long. Rct, R5c -ymmy.
post #9 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese View Post
5'10"...155 lb. 167 or 174? I really don't know how to ask this question but..you have many years of skiing under your belt (I also had FM's), do you ski like a light 5'10" or a tall 155 lb? You skied the MBX in a 193 and if I recall, they were a long 193, I personally didn't line that ski but if you skied that in a 193...but if the the Recon is a long 167....more like a 170...hmmmm let me ponder some more.
I have been skiing for apx 40 years. In Arizona, we have some years without snow and oher years without going.
10 days or more per season for the past 20.
post #10 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
Which MBX, tho? 14PL, C-series skied quite short. 16,26,R3 - meh but long. Rct, R5c -ymmy.
I believe the first generation of the MBX, the "Light Speed".
post #11 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese View Post
5'10"...155 lb. 167 or 174? I really don't know how to ask this question but..you have many years of skiing under your belt (I also had FM's), do you ski like a light 5'10" or a tall 155 lb? You skied the MBX in a 193 and if I recall, they were a long 193, I personally didn't line that ski but if you skied that in a 193...but if the the Recon is a long 167....more like a 170...hmmmm let me ponder some more.
If I follow the question, it would be a light 5'10".
post #12 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgsaz View Post
Without exageration, I could barely get down the mountian. I could not tutn at high or low speed, could not hold an edge. It was as if the skis or me were under and evil spell. I have NEVER found a more difficult ski to turn in my llife. I even thought the tune or binding placement could have been off. The chap who bought them had no complaints. Fo figure
From what I've experienced, it could have been a really bad tune.
Last year I demoed a Rossi B2 which should have been an easy ski for me given that most skis I'm normally on are more advanced than the Rossi, Yet--- It was as if I had never been on skis in my life! the skis went wherever they wanted to and every turn felt as if my knees were about be destroyed. Well I got off them fast and jumped right back on my Head iM82's which were a joy.
post #13 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
dgsaz:

You have a good plan. Two skis will always do a better job than one because the "tweener" (Recon) will compromise on both sides of the equation. If you like the feel of a K2, then there is no reason to look any further than the CF and the OL. You have already skied two of them and you know you like them so don't confuse yourself.

SJ
Jim's advise is correct.If you like the ski go for it. No one can tell you better than yourself what feels good for you.
post #14 of 14
I'm going to be the voice of moderation here. If you don't plan on skiing any more than 10-15 days this year then there is no real reason to buy more than one ski. Unless you really don't mind spending the money.
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 › Where to from here? k2?