or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › K2 Public Enemy as a powder ski in 3 ski quiver?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

K2 Public Enemy as a powder ski in 3 ski quiver?

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Hi folks. I've spent a few days searching through prior threads on K2 PEs and multi-ski quivers, but haven't found comments on how the PEs may work as a powder ski in a 3 ski quiver of carver, all-mountain, and powder. The reason I'm asking is I found the last pair of '06 PEs (164cm length) at a local ski shop for under $200 and pulled the trigger on them. I decided to pick them up before they disappeared and then decide later whether it makes sense to keep them or not.

My questions are:

-- Given I already have Fischer RX8s (160s, 66mm waist) for carving and Dynastar 4800s (165s, 75mm waist) for all-mountain, would the PEs (85mm waist) be a worthwhile ski to use for deeper powder days, or would it make more sense to pass up the bargain and go for something wider/less stiff/etc. (I started looking at older Mantra, Dyn Legend 8800, etc.)?

-- If PEs would work OK in the powder ski role, then are the 164s an OK length for me? Or will they be a little short for powder due to the twin tips?

Even though there is some overlap between these, is it ok since I'll probably bring 2 with me on any given day. If no new snow, then I'd take the carvers and all-mountain skis. If fresh snow, then I'd take the powder skis and the all-mountain skis. (Similar philosophy to others postings I've seen.)

Background info -- I'm 5'8", 145 lbs, 42 years old, probably somewhere above a level 8 skier, just returned to skiing last year after a ten year break, and I'll be skiing Tahoe mostly.

Any advice or perspectives are greatly appreciated!!!
post #2 of 15
Imo, 94cm or so would be the minimum I'd want underfoot for a powder ski, but that price is good.
post #3 of 15
Good find. Now go find something wider.
post #4 of 15
The 06 PE's actually float quite well provided you mount them (at zero). It's not quite a powder ski, but will have way more float than anything you currently have. My bet is that you'll be skiing them more than the others you currently have in your quiver
post #5 of 15
If you are skiing the Sierra, they should be ok unless things get really deep. But they are such a fun ski that you may not care.
post #6 of 15
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the feedback!

Brock & OldSchool -- I agree there are many other wider choices for a powder ski. This sure isn't an obvious choice for that purpose. I was thinking the PEs could be more multi-purpose for me. They might give me just a little more float in the powder, while I might find them to also be a good all-mountain ski. Maybe even better than my Dynastar 4800s, which seem to chatter a bit at higher speeds. I have read some good feedback from folks like Manus, iriponsnow, and others that the PE quickly became their all around go-to ski. So maybe the PEs could be both my powder + all-mountain ski, and simply rent something really wide on those extreme snow days.

Thanks Wizard for the advice on the zero mount point. Others posts suggested mount points between 0 and +2 for all-mountain, so I was curious where is should be for my usage.

Any additional advice on the length for me? I think 164s might be a little on the short side, but will they still work well given my lighter weight and usage?
post #7 of 15
I have the 179 06 PE +4 and love them for aggressive All Mt.. 166lbs 5' 10" 44 yrs. I think the 164 would be way too small.
post #8 of 15
i have the 05 PE's and they make up my one ski quiver

they are absolutely great in every condition....including powder

ive skied them in not quite waste deep conditions at mammoth and they performed great

you are pretty damn lucky to have found such a unique ski at an insane price

have fun on them!!
post #9 of 15
It is a pretty good ski at moderate speeds, but can be overpowered at higher speeds. I had fun fooling around on it, but it gets squirrley in the chop. I would prefer a Mojo 90 if you are looking at an all-mountain twin. Another guy in the shop who bought them as a pow/crud ski ended up a bit dissapointed (again, kind of squirrley for him) and he upgraded to an Elan 999, relegating the PE to park duty. But hey, if the price is right, you can always give them a shot and re-sell them if they don't work out. They are popular and somewhat hard to find a deal on.
post #10 of 15
I would use a PE for all mountain and get another ski for powder...
post #11 of 15
Thread Starter 
Thanks again for the additional comments!

Buzz -- yes, the length at 164cm is my biggest concern. If these are going to be on the shorter side for me, then would mounting them back farther, say at 0 mount point give me enough tip for the 164s to work? You've got yours at +4, and others seem to recommend +2 or +3 for all-mountain skiing--but at these mount points I could see how the 164s might then come up a little short for me.

Toronto -- I've been trying to read what lengths others are using relative to their weight. What is your weight and the length of your PEs?

dawgcatching -- thanks for bringing some balanced perspectives. I have read many good postings here on the PEs, but not much from those who didn't like them and why. Do you think it is the deeper sidecut on the PEs relative to other wider pwoder skis that make them squirrly in the chop?

PhilT -- Your comments seem to agree with many others, that the PE becomes their all-mountain ski. So I wouldn't be surprised if that happens to me as well.

About the mounting point... I just read a long thread on how the "Core Center" labeled on K2 mount point chart on the side of the ski is off by 20cm--so the "0" mount point on the chart is really -2. Knowing that, does it mean people are now usually mounting them at "-2" to for the proper 0 point for "Mid Sole". Or in other words, should people using the ski for all-mtn & powder still be mounting them at "0", or at -2? (Since the 164 length may be at the shorter end of the range for me, how far back the mount point is could be a big factor in whether they could work for me.)
post #12 of 15
The 164 PE will not be too short for you. The K2 measure by running length, so it's probably closer to a 169 in any other brand. My wife has the 159 PE's mounted at 0, I've skied them (5'6" 140 lbs), they performed more like a all mtn ski than a park ski. They didn't feel short at all even in a 159. I've tried the 164 as well, it's not only longer but stiffer. K2 also increases the stiffness on longer lengths.
post #13 of 15

im around 5 11....145 lbs.....and i ski a 174.... which is perfect for me as i tend to ski a bit longer than most people

my friend is a little taller than me and 10 lbs heavier and he skis a 169 and rips
post #14 of 15
i would also possibly suggest passing on the deal and maybe purchasing the volkl gotama or k2 seth vicious if u want a powder oriented ski that can handle in crud/wind blown conditions....

the PE really is a great ski tho....it shines in all conditions
post #15 of 15
Thread Starter 
Wizard & Toronto -- thanks for the extra advice, it really helps!

I'm leaning towards keeping them, and giving them a try. I'm thinking about mounting some used Look P12 demo bindings I have, so at least I would have some flexibility on the binding position to find the best sweet spot for me and my style.

If I don't love them, then I could always pass on the bargain to another bear member, etc.

Some of Tahoe is opening this weekend, so the season is finally about to begin here!
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 Public Enemy as a powder ski in 3 ski quiver?