EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › All Mountain Twin-tip Shootout: PE vs. Karma
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

All Mountain Twin-tip Shootout: PE vs. Karma - Page 2

post #31 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tekweezle View Post
interesting review, well done IMO. thanks for all your hard work.

I used your observations in part to make my decision to stick with slightly shorter PE's. well i bought the skis beforehand but now i don;t feel i made a mistake with the purchase as of yet.
I know one good skier on 169 PE's, mounted at the 0 line, he's about 140 lb and 5'6". Skiing all around in the east, with lots of moguls.

Sure, you can ski them at your size, but I'm seriously warning you that they are going to be short compared to what most people would like.
post #32 of 44
i think I need to lose some weight!
post #33 of 44
Thread Starter 

tekweezle

I hate to say it, but 169cm might be a little too short for you going by your specs in another thread -- your weight drives me to suggest this more so than your height, sorry about that . And I am getting the sense that you might suspect the 169s are too short also. You might want to consider 174cm; I think you could probably sell the 169cm quite easily since they haven't been mounted yet (in fact viking_kaj was thinking about a pair for his daughter up above). But I am curious, what are your other skis and what lengths are they? How do you plan to use the PEs? Some people do fine on shorter skis than I would choose myself, so your prior experience is important to consider here. I shouldn't jump to conclusions without hearing about that first.

My own experience was that the 179cm PEs looked long to me when I pulled them out of the box, and they looked long up front when I skied them the first time. I was wondering if 174cm would have been a better choice for me, as I have gradually downsized my other skis in the last year by about 5-8cm after losing some weight. But I quickly discovered that the PEs ski a lot shorter than they look on hardpack. A lot of that length up front is not engaging the snow until you hit the soft stuff (in which case it's a bonus). After skiing the 179cm in all conditions, I can't imagine going shorter now. For my 6'1" and 185lb frame, the 179cm PEs seem damn near perfect.

Craig
post #34 of 44
i don;t doubt that I probably could and should have went longer. maybe if they come back on SAC at an even lower price, I;ll pickup another pair.

i went from 183 K2 Merlin 4;s(great for all mountain cruising, a little too long in the moguls for me)

to 167 K2 Axis(my east coast ski)

to 170 Salomon Scream Limited's(good float in crud, not as quick edge to edge as I;d like).

I was planning to use these mostly for moguls, trees and all mountain cruising mostly in the north east. i was looking for a nimble twin tip ski. maybe some light park use.
post #35 of 44
Thread Starter 
Yeah, I am thinking 174cm would have been better, but the 169cm will be super maneuverable and feel a lot shorter than your other skis. If you are OK with that, then maybe the 169cm will do all right.
post #36 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tekweezle View Post
i don;t doubt that I probably could and should have went longer. maybe if they come back on SAC at an even lower price, I;ll pickup another pair.
tekweezle, you do know that SAC has a terrific return/exchange policy, don't you? Last time I checked backcountry.com (which is SAC's parent organization from which they draw their stock) they still have all sizes of the PE available. Have you considered just contacting them for an exchange?
post #37 of 44
Excel tables and bar graphs!
You the man!
A little scary, but still the man!
post #38 of 44
Nice review. Especially helpful since I scored some 179's from SAC earlier in the week.
post #39 of 44
Thread Starter 
The SAC deals have been good; I will be tempted to pick up another pair of PEs if I am ever in front of the computer when the deal shows up!
post #40 of 44
Did anybody measured a 177 Karma? I still have the curiosity to compare it with M777.

And, for any canadian guy who likes PE, Mad Dog in Great Vancouver is selling them for 275CDN. That's competitive to 189US + shipping off SAC. One of my friend just picked a pair in 169, although I have suggested him reading this thread first.
post #41 of 44
Bump for this classic thread on how NOT to review skis.....yikes.
post #42 of 44
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the bump a-hole.
post #43 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
....bump-a-hole....
Classic.....:
post #44 of 44
Great review, too bad H.S. has to hijack the thread.. I guess some people just did not get enough attention as children.

I agree that the shape of the tip and tail are changing the rules concerning length. I no longer depend on the factory stated length alone. I consider the running or contact length. Here is why;

Sidecut: Coomba 135 -102-121mm, Watea 134-101-124mm
Turn radius: 22 @174cm, Watea 25 @ 192cm

Running length: 174cm Coomba has a 152.5cm Running length, the 192cm Watea has a 162cm running length.

the 192cm has only a 9.5cm longer running length than the 174cm. In this case its the turned up tail on the Watea that shortens the ski.

Another compairo... The RX8 pictured below is a 175cm size.

It's running length is 7cm less than the 192cm 101.

And the RX8 has a turned up tail also.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=67514
525x525px-LL-vbattach2941.jpg
525x525px-LL-vbattach2942.jpg
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › All Mountain Twin-tip Shootout: PE vs. Karma