or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › '07 K2 Public Enemy sizing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'07 K2 Public Enemy sizing

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
Hey everyone. I am wondering what size '07 K2 Public Enemy to buy. I am 5'10", 195 lbs (usually I weigh 180 lbs by mid ski season, though), am an advanced skier (but certainly NOT an expert) and ski mostly in the east. My other skis are Volkl Carver Motions in 170 length and Volkl AC3 in 170 length.

Should I go with 169, 174, or 179? Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you!
post #2 of 23

179

I'd go 179 at your size. I'm 6' and 190 and have the 179's.

Mike
post #3 of 23
Thread Starter 

Rx8

Mike - I see that you ski the Fischer RX8 in a 170 (comparable to me skiing my Volkl Carver Motions in 170). Do the Public Enemies feel considerably longer when turning than your RX8s, or does the turn radius just feel a little bit longer?
post #4 of 23
go 179cm as in every other thread here, doesnt anyone search??
post #5 of 23
Thread Starter 
I have searched, but this kind of information can be very specific to tastes and skier location (not all of us have the luxury of Utah powder at our doorstep). That said, I'd love some input from others after clarifying my skiing preferences/info a bit further. I am 5'10" and usually weigh in at 178 during mid-season. I am a advanced intermediate to advanced skier (not expert) who skis a 170 Volkl AC3 regularly. If I get 179 K2 Public Enemies, do you think I can handle them in east coast conditions or would 169s or 174s be a better call. Please put yourself in my ski world and answer honestly. I appreciate all additional advice as I want to make sure that I buy the right skis.
post #6 of 23
Ski the 174s before you buy, I think you will like those the best. The trend on this forum is and has been to recommend skis that are much to long for most of the people asking the question. The fact is the PE is 11mm wider under foot than skis your on now. By going to long you will loose all of the advantages you are looking to gain.
My 2 cents

james
post #7 of 23
I'm 5'8" and 155-160lbs, and I like my PE's at 174cm just fine in hardpack SoCal conditions, although I usually resort to race carvers in icy conditions.

(Conditions in the SoCal mountains tend toward hardpack/ice, and any snowfall we get is water-heavy, preducing dense snow unlike Utah's stuff. I think they call this stuff "Sierra Cement". From the descriptions I've read, I don't think it's very far removed from East Coast conditions, not that I have any experience there. Maybe we should call it all "Coastal Conditions".)

PE's have long upturns (with a shallow rise to produce the same total rise as normal upturns), which makes their effective edges on hardpack/ice considerably shorter than their physical length would suggest. There is an in-depth thread in the "Gear Reviews" forum:

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=53656

...Where that PE owner found his 179cm PE's to have an effective edge of only 144cm(!) By extrapolation, my 174cm PE's should have an effective edge of 139cm, and actual measurement... confirms this EXACTLY. My 174cm PE's have an effective edge of 139cm.

Now get this: my 170cm GS cheaters (Atomic LT:11m) measures in at an effective edge of... 151cm(!)

My 155cm slalom cheaters (Salomon Equipe 10 SC) measures in at an effective edge of 135cm. Note that this relates almost perfectly to the Atomics (15-16cm difference in both effective and total length), suggesting these are "normal" proportions.

So the 174cm PE's lose a whopping 12cm of effective edge relative to a "normal" 170cm ski, while the 179cm PE's still lose 7cm.

You can go measure effective the effective edge lengths of your current skis and see how that compares.
post #8 of 23
Yes, be careful with length, as PEs are already much shorter than a traditional ski of the same size. I can't emphasize this enough. On groomed snow, PEs easily ski 10-15cm shorter than the sticker length suggests. In powder, they ski like longer skis because of the long tips/tails, which engage in deep snow.

I'd say 174-179cm would be OK for you.
post #9 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlong1974 View Post
Ski the 174s before you buy, I think you will like those the best. The trend on this forum is and has been to recommend skis that are much to long for most of the people asking the question. The fact is the PE is 11mm wider under foot than skis your on now. By going to long you will loose all of the advantages you are looking to gain.
My 2 cents

james
The best answer I've seen here in a long time.
post #10 of 23
Thread Starter 

Now, the tough part....

I agree that 174 may be the ideal fit for me. However, a friend of mine bought the Public Enemies in the 179 on SteepandCheap for $168 and now he doesn't want them. He will sell them to me for cost.

So, my dilemma now is if I should spend $449 on the 174 or for $168 go with the 179 and hope I like them.
post #11 of 23
flip a coin ... actually better idea - demo them tonight or tomorrow at Wawa. You won't get better conditions than right NOW!
post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahston Skiah View Post
So, my dilemma now is if I should spend $449 on the 174 or for $168 go with the 179 and hope I like them.
Or $299 for the 174 at EvoGear, or $240 for the 179 at backcountryoutlet.com. 2007 model obviously.
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahston Skiah View Post
I agree that 174 may be the ideal fit for me. However, a friend of mine bought the Public Enemies in the 179 on SteepandCheap for $168 and now he doesn't want them. He will sell them to me for cost.

So, my dilemma now is if I should spend $449 on the 174 or for $168 go with the 179 and hope I like them.
Get them...Ski them a couple of days and if you don't like them you can easily sell them for exactly what you paid.
post #14 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
Yes, be careful with length, as PEs are already much shorter than a traditional ski of the same size. I can't emphasize this enough. On groomed snow, PEs easily ski 10-15cm shorter than the sticker length suggests. In powder, they ski like longer skis because of the long tips/tails, which engage in deep snow.

I'd say 174-179cm would be OK for you.

K2's actual running length is usually longer than other manufacturers skis that are marketed as the same size. This is also true of their twin skis.

For instance...My 179 PE's are the same length as my 183 Gotamas, tip to tail, and the contact length actually seems a bit longer on the PE's as well. Skiing them, the PE's definetely ski longer than the Goats (the tails on my Goats slide out way easier than the PE's mounted at +2.5, which hold an edge much better).

The Goats have the upper hand on deep snow, but everywhere else, the PE's are funner.
post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by memosteve View Post
K2's actual running length is usually longer than other manufacturers skis that are marketed as the same size. This is also true of their twin skis.

For instance...My 179 PE's are the same length as my 183 Gotamas, tip to tail, and the contact length actually seems a bit longer on the PE's as well. Skiing them, the PE's definetely ski longer than the Goats (the tails on my Goats slide out way easier than the PE's mounted at +2.5, which hold an edge much better).
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. May I inquire how you're measuring your contact length (synonymous here with both "running length" and "effective edge") on your PE's?

The way that most everyone does it is to find a very flat surface to place the ski (like a long Corian-type countertop), flatten it by weighing the boot contact point, then taking something like a credit card and sliding it under the upturns at each end until it touches/get stopped by contact with the ski. You mark that contact point at each end and measure the distance between the two.

That measurement is surprisingly consistent. skier219 found his 179cm PE to measure 144cm, while I found my 174cm PE to measure 139cm. skier219 also listed this measurement for his Volkl Karmas in his thread, and I have also listed the contact length for my non-twin-tipped skis in my post above.
post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by DtEW View Post
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. May I inquire how you're measuring your contact length (synonymous here with both "running length" and "effective edge") on your PE's?

The way that most everyone does it is to find a very flat surface to place the ski (like a long Corian-type countertop), flatten it by weighing the boot contact point, then taking something like a credit card and sliding it under the upturns at each end until it touches/get stopped by contact with the ski. You mark that contact point at each end and measure the distance between the two.

That measurement is surprisingly consistent. skier219 found his 179cm PE to measure 144cm, while I found my 174cm PE to measure 139cm. skier219 also listed this measurement for his Volkl Karmas in his thread, and I have also listed the contact length for my non-twin-tipped skis in my post above.

I'll try that tonight when I get home...I just looked at both skis, side by side, sitting on kitchen floor.

Regardless, both skis are almost identical tip to tail (I know...Has nothing to do with actual running length/effective edge...Just saying) and the PE still skis longer than my Goats.
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by memosteve View Post
My 179 PE's are the same length as my 183 Gotamas, tip to tail...
Quote:
Originally Posted by memosteve View Post
Regardless, both skis are almost identical tip to tail...
That's the ironic thing. PE's are longer overall than most other twin-tips at the same specified size, yet shorter in their actual contact length. Those upturns are really much shallower than "normal" upturns.

It would be good to have another data point from your Gotamas... it would be nice if there was a way to incorporate this sort of data into a public database.
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by DtEW View Post
That's the ironic thing. PE's are longer overall than most other twin-tips at the same specified size, yet shorter in their actual contact length. Those upturns are really much shallower than "normal" upturns.

It would be good to have another data point from your Gotamas... it would be nice if there was a way to incorporate this sort of data into a public database.

Referring to the first paragraph: This could be the reason why the PE's seem like they ski soft/deep snow like a much wider wasted ski. The tip/tail design works well at floating the ski.
post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by memosteve View Post
Referring to the first paragraph: This could be the reason why the PE's seem like they ski soft/deep snow like a much wider wasted ski. The tip/tail design works well at floating the ski.
Exactly -- it's like an on-demand powder ski.
post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
Exactly -- it's like an on-demand powder ski.

Kinda the same idea as a rockered ski.
post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by DtEW View Post
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. May I inquire how you're measuring your contact length (synonymous here with both "running length" and "effective edge") on your PE's?

The way that most everyone does it is to find a very flat surface to place the ski (like a long Corian-type countertop), flatten it by weighing the boot contact point, then taking something like a credit card and sliding it under the upturns at each end until it touches/get stopped by contact with the ski. You mark that contact point at each end and measure the distance between the two.

That measurement is surprisingly consistent. skier219 found his 179cm PE to measure 144cm, while I found my 174cm PE to measure 139cm. skier219 also listed this measurement for his Volkl Karmas in his thread, and I have also listed the contact length for my non-twin-tipped skis in my post above.

Using the method above, here's what I got from the PE and the Gotama:

My 06/07 179 PE's measure 182cm overall with the effective edge (contact to contact) measuring 146.5cm.

My 07/08 183 Gotama's measure 182.5cm overall with the effective edge (contact to contact) measuring 153cm.

In conclusion, the Goats have a longer contact point/effective edge than the PE's, but the PE's feel alot more stable, especially the tails, than my Goats. This is also true with higher speeds/crud/carving, therefore they feel like they ski "longer" than the Goats, at least to me.

This maybe due to the PE being stiffer and having a more forward mount.
post #22 of 23
There have been so many threads/discussions about this ski...mostly very positive opinions...that I have to ask the following question: Especially price considered...but not necessarily...what other skis in that width range offer substantially better performance in such areas as bumps, moderate crud and powder and groomer performance(Level 7-8 skier). Leave the twin tip issue to personal preference.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan o'neil View Post
There have been so many threads/discussions about this ski...mostly very positive opinions...that I have to ask the following question: Especially price considered...but not necessarily...what other skis in that width range offer substantially better performance in such areas as bumps, moderate crud and powder and groomer performance(Level 7-8 skier). Leave the twin tip issue to personal preference.

For me, it's the PE...

I also love the Atomic Snoop Daddy, and some others, but overall, the PE does everything very well and it's just so much fun.

I've been through alot of midfats (80-90mm skis are almost considered "skinny" anymore) and my favorites were the Rossi B3 (had the 05/06 in a 184 and the 06/07 in a 176) and the Snoop in a 185...That was until I skied the PE.

The B3's were very good at crud busting and very damp, the Snoop's were livelier with better edge hold. Over the last two seasons I came to the conclusion that I actually don't like super damp skis, which I previously thought I did and would buy skis accordingly.

I skied the PE's and realized they are a perfect blend of liveliness and smooth. They do everything as well, and many things better (pow for one), than my B3's and WAY more fun...So, I sold the B3's.

Now I still love the Snoops, but with the PE's being in the stable, I'm not sure they will be my automatic everyday ski choice anymore...Maybe for days when I know I'll run into more ice than usual.

Before I got the PE's I was constantly in search of the perfect midfat. For the first time ever I don't see the point in looking anymore...For me, the search is over. I wouldn't mind trying out the Mythic Rider, just to see what Sierra Jim is all hyped about, although I suspect that I tend to like stiffer skis than he does.

My two favorite skis I ever owned (I've owned alot, including about 18 pairs currently) are the PE's and my PM Gear 188 stiff BRO's. My second favorites are the Snoop's and the Armada ANT's.

Any one of those skis I'd be happy with as an everyday ski, but for some reason, the PE's make me want to ski like I did when I was 10 years younger, which could actually be a bad thing.
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 › '07 K2 Public Enemy sizing