or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › K2 Bad Seed for small woman?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

K2 Bad Seed for small woman?

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
Dear gear gurus:
I'm looking for a *short* mid-fat for myself to use as my powder ski. I'm looking for an 85-90 waist, at 150 length, no bigger. And prefer a ski that comes flat, no system binding.

I'm tiny and female. 4'11, 105#, adv-exp east coast skier. All my faithful and trusted shops are saying anything longer than 150 is too long for me for an eastern locale. They say I could get away with skis in the 154-158 length if I were out west, but for east they say I want stick with shorter due to my tiny size. "Big bowls and wide trails=big skis, narrow trails & tight trees - shorter skis". That true?

Here's the dilemma. Not many manufacturers make a 85-90 waisted ski at 150 length. I've found Rossi Scratch Girl BC and Rossi B3W (the B3W has very mixed reviews by women), and the K2 Bad Seed. I ski on 146 Burnin Luv's now. Tough luv's come in 146 with an 88 waist, I demoed them and liked them, but they're just too heavy w/ the system binding. Did not yet have a chance to demo any Rossi's but I'm still keeping them on my "short" list.

What are your opininons of the K2 Bad Seed in a 149 for someone like me? It seems to be very much what I'm looking for, but I would never be able to find one to demo around here. Thoughts?
post #2 of 11
A friend of mine is about your weight but a hair taller, and really likes her 163cm Sugar Daddies for eastern trees (99mm waist). They are mounted with 14 din rossi FKS turntable bindings (fairly light for a 14 din).

Anyway, Atomic makes a 153 sugar daddy, it should be extremely easy to handle if you mount light bindings on it. You could probably even ski the 163. But there's alot more to it than length - weight of the ski and the mounting point are HUGE factors. If you are talking about light ski/binding with a soft tip or reverse camber and forward mounting point, you could probably ski something up to a 165 or 170.

Stay away from system bindings, they blow. Totally. Get some Look Nova's with no lift if you want a LIGHT binding.....3.5lb.

Shops, on average size people too short and don't trust their ablity...
post #3 of 11
I think there are tons of great options out there in a better length for you and I think you're selling yourself short.
Assuming that you have muscle coordination and adult capabilities, a kids ski is not likely to perform for you in the way that an adult ski will.

Seriously, I should be on a ski in the high 150's if you ask the shops but my favourite skis are in the high 160's and low 170's, depending on twin tips.

Another thing you should consider is that the contact length of your average twin is going to put you into something longer as stated on the sticker.

If I were you, I'd look for a Volkl Queen Attiva(87w), or an Aura(94w) in a 156. Lots of tiny women are skiing on these and loving them.
I'm getting tons of grins from my Blizzard eos but its a system ski and you have said you aren't considering that.

Sorry to be blunt, but I'm concerned you'll be doing a disservice to yourself if you get into a jr ski.
post #4 of 11
Thread Starter 
I've considered the Queen Attivas, but those were exactly the skis in which they said they'd be too big for me as an eastern ski. I've seen some killer deals on them lately. And it's one of these same shops who suggested I research to see what's out there in a jr. pow ski. I figured it was worth a look-see. In the past I've had issues with skis that were too long for my size and although I'm a solid and technical skier, I am puny and tend to get bucked around if a ski is too much.

Highway star - you hit the nail on the head with Look Nova's. I had them on my old Volants and they've been great. I've got Salomon Z10 ti's on my Burnin Luvs. They're really light, but I wouldn't want them as a binding on a soft snow ski, b/c they need firm pressure to step into and they've been difficult to click into on some soft surfaces. Thanks for reminding me of the Looks!

p.s my ex-volants were 155's and were indeed a little long for me. I ended up having to move the bindings forward to tame them. That worked out just fine. I suppose I could always do the same in this situation?
post #5 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by martini View Post
Highway star - you hit the nail on the head with Look Nova's. I had them on my old Volants and they've been great. I've got Salomon Z10 ti's on my Burnin Luvs. They're really light, but I wouldn't want them as a binding on a soft snow ski, b/c they need firm pressure to step into and they've been difficult to click into on some soft surfaces. Thanks for reminding me of the Looks!

p.s my ex-volants were 155's and were indeed a little long for me. I ended up having to move the bindings forward to tame them. That worked out just fine. I suppose I could always do the same in this situation?
Your volants were probably pretty heavy and may have had a pretty rearward mounting point to begin with, so that makes sense. Stiff too. However, when you start to mount forward, you lose float unless the ski has a very soft tip or tip rocker.

I would suggest the 153 sugar daddies, mounted on the line with Nova (use your old ones even), or the 163's mounted +1 or +2. They are very light and you shouldn't have a problem with them.
post #6 of 11
I agree with HS completely on the binding mount part. Guessing that part of your problem has been that the binding position was more of an issue that the ski length itself.

If you can, demo some skis that you can play around with the binding position. Our local Nordica rep is really good at this.
See if there is a specific binding position you like in a particular ski.

FWIW, SkiDiva is on the QA and isn't much bigger than you.
She skis primarily at Okemo.
post #7 of 11
Thread Starter 
It's possible the old Volants were mounted too far back to begin with, I found the best position by demoing a 2nd pair with movable bindings and then moved mine accordingly.

HS - The sugar daddies are just too wide for eastern pow. We dont get anything deep enough often enough to warrant such a wide ski. Now if the snoop daddies came shorter....and then there's the sweet daddies and mama's, those I'll have to look at as well...
post #8 of 11
What about the K2 Misdemeanor? 80mm under foot and built similar to the rock solid PE.
post #9 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by martini View Post
It's possible the old Volants were mounted too far back to begin with, I found the best position by demoing a 2nd pair with movable bindings and then moved mine accordingly.

HS - The sugar daddies are just too wide for eastern pow. We dont get anything deep enough often enough to warrant such a wide ski. Now if the snoop daddies came shorter....and then there's the sweet daddies and mama's, those I'll have to look at as well...
Hahaha....you're not skiing in the right spots then. Plenty of people ski a fat ski in Central VT and further north, I personally have 125mm waist Big Daddy's and 110mm waist Axioms. Around here (Killington), an all around ski is 85-90mm at the waist. I know numerous people skiing very fat skis.

Anyway, my friend is using those Sugar Daddy's for eastern trees, and has no problem turning them....

If your taking the advice of shops on ski width, maybe you should stop. Or maybe you ski further north....
post #10 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut_hucker View Post
What about the K2 Misdemeanor? 80mm under foot and built similar to the rock solid PE.
That's my friend's all-around bump ski.
post #11 of 11
I am about the same size (4'11") and 105 #; a local ski shop suggested the junior version of the Volkl Mantra, which is a jr. powder ski 80 at the waist and twin tip. I ski in the east too.

JaneB
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 Bad Seed for small woman?