New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Replace the PE's?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
I bought a pair of Public Enemy (179) this year based on the comments of members on this board. Mounted a pair of MOJO 15's. LOVE THEM! I feel more stable, more forward and more on my edges than before, and they seem to just have alot of pop.

I was on a pair of Bandits XX (170), and thought I like them until I skied the PE's.

But..... it's like the search for the grail. I'm wondering what's out there that might be even better??

I've read the various reviews on the Watea (both 84 and 94) as well as the Mantra's. Thinking about trying to take advantage of season end sales.

I can pick up another pair of PE's ('06 -'07) for $200, Watea 84 for $329, 94's for about $400 and the Mantras for about $490.

Two questions: Which one skis most similarly to the PE's, and how much better?

Like all things I know it's subjective but your opinions would be appreciated.

Reed
post #2 of 27
Why not just grab another pair of PE's?
post #3 of 27
Thread Starter 
Good point,

Always looking for something better. But the price differences makes me question how much better?
post #4 of 27
I have the PEs, and the 84/94. The Wateas are much better than the PEs in crud. In fact, I consider crud to be the PEs weak spot. The Wateas also have much more of a finesse feel in powder and soft packed powder, offering finer control. I happen to like the PEs better on hard snow. Where I think the PEs totally rule is in spring snow and bumps. And of course, if you just want a fun, bomber, all-mtn twin, the PEs are hard to beat. I skied my PEs for the first time this season today, and was reminded how great they are. Super fun ski. Best $200 I ever spent on skis!

I'd say keep the PEs and add another ski, so that you will have an expanded range of capabilities. The PEs and Wateas are great, and they all have an important place in my quiver.
post #5 of 27
Just curious, are the 179 PE's measured where the tip and tail touch the snow? Or do they ski around a 174 or so?
post #6 of 27
The 179 PEs are equivalent to a 165cm traditional ski. More details here:

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=53656
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
The 179 PEs are equivalent to a 165cm traditional ski. More details here:

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=53656
Pure BS. While they may have a short running length, thay have a longer effective sidecut and they ski true to their length especially if mounted at the 0 mark. They are just as stable as any other beefy ~180cm midfat ski, and are about as stable as the average 185-190, when mounted at the 0 mark.

I would also say that they are excellent in crud, if mounted at the 0 mark.

The only thing glaringly wrong with the PE is the base material - while it is tough, it is also pretty slow.
post #8 of 27
OK genius, explain to me how any part of the ski edge not in contact with the snow contributes to the turn shape. This ought to be good, I have always wanted an air ski. You can tip the PEs to a very high edge angle with the full sidecut engaged, and the edges forward and aft of the contact points will still not make contact on packed snow. The longish tip geometry only has effect in soft/deep snow.

On a separate note, PE crud performance is definitely sub-par to the Wateas, by a long shot. The skis are in a different category as far as I am concerned.
post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
OK genius, explain to me how any part of the ski edge not in contact with the snow contributes to the turn shape. This ought to be good, I have always wanted an air ski. You can tip the PEs to a very high edge angle with the full sidecut engaged, and the edges forward and aft of the contact points will still not make contact on packed snow. The longish tip geometry only has effect in soft/deep snow.

On a separate note, PE crud performance is definitely sub-par to the Wateas, by a long shot. The skis are in a different category as far as I am concerned.
False.

You obviously don't know how to ski a high edge angle, or how to pressure the tail or tip of the ski. The added sidecut on the PE engages just fine. Maybe not on glare ice, but certainly on packed powder. You can also "butter" on the tips and tails while turning, very handy for skiing uneven terrain.

You've miscalculated the sidecut in your review, it is clearly very true to 20m, per K2's specs, plus my own calculations and experince.

Running length is one factor to stablity - the ski is also fairly heavy, stiff, and has substantial swing weight. Having that extra tip and tail works for it's overall stablity at speed, especially on soft snow. It is a reasonably stable ski.

The PE feels short to you because you have them mounted +2.5cm. That's a HUGE difference. I've skied the PE in every type of crud imagineable, and it's excellent, especially for a ski of this nature. (mounted at 0). It can be pushed quite hard through choppy snow without getting thrown off track. It won't plow through like a very heavy ski or float like a fat ski, but has a great combo of flex, shape and weight to split the difference between floating and cutting, while still being able to hold a line.
post #10 of 27
HS, we already went over this in my review (read your own posts there and my replies). I don't happen to think that the tip past the contact point engages in a carved turn on hard snow in any significant way, but it doesn't matter what I think. Whether you use the contact points (me) or the max width points (you) to calculate radius, you come out with about the same number that is right around 20.3-20.6m. Scroll down to the spreadsheet. In that particular review, the PE specs about 3m shorter than a like-sized twin tip ski, again however you wish to define the sidecut. I'm obviously not as good a skier as you -- what with my inability to ski a high edge angle and pressure a tip or tail : -- but whether we do the math your way or my way, the PE still turns short for its length. This confirms my observations on the snow.

In terms of the ski feeling short and having particular crud performance, I have my Wateas (84 and 94) mounted on the line, which puts my BOF almost directly on chord center. And that's the same foot/chord placement I get on the PE at +2.5. As far as I am concerned, that makes it a fairly good comparison (and the 84 is even similarly sized to the PE in length and waist). With that type of mount, the Wateas are significantly better in crud, despite the fact that the PE has more tip action in the soft snow. I don't think going back to a 0 mount on the PE is going to change that a whole lot; in fact, if it made the tips even more floaty, that would diminish crud performance further in my opinion. My problem with the PE in crud is that the shallow tip wants to ramp over everything, while the more abrupt tip on the Wateas is better at charging through crud and then gracefully transitioning to float when the conditions are right. The Wateas tend to float more smoothly overall because they are a softer lighter ski. The PE will float the tips, but the overall ski is too snappy to transform that to a uniform float of the same quality as the Wateas. They are totally different skis.
post #11 of 27
I have the PE's in a 174cm. (I weigh 146 lbs.) In comparison to the other skis in my quiver, here is my opinion. For a twin tip, they are surprisingly stable, carvable, and versatile. They are heavy for their size, which is a plus in everything but bumps and swingweight. I put tyrolia railflex bindings on mine so I can adjust the binding placement. More forward, quicker. Set back a little, gosh, they are amazingly stable carvers. And they float OK in powder, but a bigger, lighter ski would be even better. I thought they were pretty good in crud due to their weight. I have demoed the Fischer Atua which is similar to the Wateas. I agree it is a totally different ride. It is larger and lighter. In heavy crud, I would prefer the PEs; in lighter crud, I would go with the Fischers.
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
.....while the more abrupt tip on the Wateas is better at charging through crud.......
Good luck with that....


Whatever....you obviously are someone who spends waaay too much time overthinking technical concepts, without enough reality mixed in. Try harder.

If you can't tell the difference between 2.5cm in a binding mount, you obviously don't have a very good feel for ski equipment.

In the case of the PE, such a rearward (0) mount makes for a short, narrow tail that really digs into the snow, while the tip planes up. Adds swing weight and stablity at speed, but they are still very nimble skis.

How many pairs of skis do you have, btw??? My active quiver this year has been 6 pair, plus a few others that get mixed in. I buy about 3-5 pairs a year, and demo quite a bit. I also tune all my own gear, including base planing, and mount my own bindings (without a jig).

You need more real experience.
post #13 of 27
Dang.....just reading that review thread again annoys they heck out of me.....fail.
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
Good luck with that....


Whatever....you obviously are someone who spends waaay too much time overthinking technical concepts, without enough reality mixed in. Try harder.

If you can't tell the difference between 2.5cm in a binding mount, you obviously don't have a very good feel for ski equipment.

In the case of the PE, such a rearward (0) mount makes for a short, narrow tail that really digs into the snow, while the tip planes up. Adds swing weight and stablity at speed, but they are still very nimble skis.

How many pairs of skis do you have, btw??? My active quiver this year has been 6 pair, plus a few others that get mixed in. I buy about 3-5 pairs a year, and demo quite a bit. I also tune all my own gear, including base planing, and mount my own bindings (without a jig).

You need more real experience.
You know, if I didn't already think you were a major douchebag, I would take offense at this. But in your case, I am seriously not surprised.

Read some of my many reviews and notes about my skis. I really don't care how many skis you own or demo, but if you want to make it into a pissing match, then yeah, I'm right with you on numbers, and I tune and mount myself (without a jig too -- because I am a badass . But I would think you were a douchebag no matter how many skis either one of us owned, and regardless of whether or not we tune/mount skis. Just the fact that you bring that up confirms it. Want to count how many pairs of boots next? Socks?

Also, do you realize that a +2.5 mount for me might be the same as a +1 mount for someone else if they had larger boots, or a zero mount for a sasquatch? Do you have any frame of reference for the zero mark to begin with, or do you simply think the manufacturer's mark, your boot size, and your skiing style are a dead on match? Criticize me for thinking about it, but if you blindly mount at zero and act like its the best thing ever, then you have not thought about it enough. At least I have tried various mount points.

The bottom line on the 179cm PE is that it has a 144cm running length. Call it what you want, but that's the same running length most 165cm traditional skis have. By many metrics for comparing skis, that makes the PE ski short. The specs confirm my experiences on the snow. If you think it's a longer ski, great.
post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
You know, if I didn't already think you were a major douchebag, I would take offense at this. But in your case, I am seriously not surprised.

Read some of my many reviews and notes about my skis. I really don't care how many skis you own or demo, but if you want to make it into a pissing match, then yeah, I'm right with you on numbers, and I tune and mount myself (without a jig too -- because I am a badass . But I would think you were a douchebag no matter how many skis either one of us owned, and regardless of whether or not we tune/mount skis. Just the fact that you bring that up confirms it. Want to count how many pairs of boots next? Socks?

Also, do you realize that a +2.5 mount for me might be the same as a +1 mount for someone else if they had larger boots, or a zero mount for a sasquatch? Do you have any frame of reference for the zero mark to begin with, or do you simply think the manufacturer's mark, your boot size, and your skiing style are a dead on match? Criticize me for thinking about it, but if you blindly mount at zero and act like its the best thing ever, then you have not thought about it enough. At least I have tried various mount points.

The bottom line on the 179cm PE is that it has a 144cm running length. Call it what you want, but that's the same running length most 165cm traditional skis have. By many metrics for comparing skis, that makes the PE ski short. The specs confirm my experiences on the snow. If you think it's a longer ski, great.
(smacks head against wall)

Look dude, first of all:

- Learn how to measure a ski properly
- Learn how to calculate sidecut properly
- Learn about the concept of ROCKER/EARLY RISE (DUH!!!!)
- Learn about mounting points
- Learn about how MANY factors effect if a ski skis long or short!!!

Umkay...????

Now that that's out of the way....+2.5????? I don't care how big your boot sole is or where your BOF is. It's all bs!!!! Really!!! THAT"S REALLY FORWARD!!! THAT'S THE REASON THEY SKI SHORT FOR YOU! DUH!!!

If BOF was such a big deal, all the companys would still do a toe mount, or gradiated scale like the Elan's from the mid-90's........

EVERY SKI'S OPTIMUM MOUNTING POINT IS RELATIVE TO MANY, MANY FACTORS.

Last time I checked, I use more than just my BOF to ski with. Like my toe, and my heel. DUH!!! THe ski designer wants you at the MIDSOLE mounting point, as designed. Due to the flex and dimensions of the ski. I'm telling you, they didn't just pull that mark out of their A$$. Hey, you may differ with the designer...so hey....go -1 or +1...or more if the mark is waaay off. But only by feel and for good reason. Not for some STUPID BOF theory that dorks discuss on the internet!!!

The measured running length on this is largely irrelevant. IT HAS TIP AND TAIL EARLY RISE. THAT IS GOOD.

So. Are you going to now tell me in your infinte wisdom that K2 Hellbents ski short? Praxis??? DPS????? Get a clue, buddy!!!

Anyway, I KNOW the 179 PE works for many BIG agressive skiers, MOUNTED AT 0. People I know and ski with, over 200 lb. Any skis ski short when mounted +2.5....duh!!!!

The 179 PE is the smallest, most nimble ski in my quiver...but in no way would I say it skis short...it has the stiffness and weight (and when mounted at 0 to compensate for the shorter length) hangs with the big dogs quite well:

179 PE w/ZR18
183 Axiom W/180 PRO
186 IM88 W/180 Freeride
186 Stockli Scott Schmidt w/997 Competition+lift
190 Super Big Daddy w/180 PRO
192 M777 w/Vist V13+S916
200 Ultrawave MF w/957 composite
201 Asteriod w/957 Competiton

If I normally ski all those skis (in the east, no less)...and I like the 179 PE.....obviously, it cannot "ski short".
post #16 of 27
Hs continuie to be pretty spot on..first let me say BOF is crap. every ski I have tried mounted that way putt me way back seat most of the time.

Then let me say I have owned 2 85mm waisted PE with one mounted on the '0" line and one +2. The original pair was damn good high speed charger in any type of rough snow, heck even in powder it rocked. Move forward to this year and I have 2 fatter longer skis. 192cm Thugs mounted on the line and 189cm Seths mounted +2. I really didnt need my Pe for high speed crud busting anymore. The new pair I got I mounted plus +2, huge gains in how quick the ski was with very little loss in crud and powder. Groomers, bumps, and skied out trees were much more fun and park skiing is way easier forward.

The PE is one of the best steep but skied out skis on the market its blend of easy going and muscle are pretty rare thing found today.
post #17 of 27
I agree with you Bush. I should say that I don't have any particular loyalty to BOF per se, but it's important to realize what the various positions mean and where the manufacturer's mark lies, and then take that into account to determine where to mount. If nothing else, maybe it will help you avoid a BOF mount if you don't like that. Through experience, I have come to like being no farther forward than about -1cm behind BOF/CRS, and I wasn't hip to that until I started measuring skis and playing with mounting positions.

As an example, the Elan free-ride skis of a couple years ago (Mag12, M666, etc) had a very forward mounting line. If I went to a zero mount on those skis, I would actually be ahead of a BOF/CRS matchup by 8-10mm. Someone with really large boots would be even farther ahead. Whether they knew it or not, those skis were putting people on or ahead of a BOF/CRS mount when they mounted on the line. The skis felt a lot better for me when I went back farther (stepping along the fusion system rack) to get slightly behind BOF. With the standard mount, the tips felt too short in powder and the tails felt too long on groomed snow (=backseat feel).

On other skis, mounting on the line generally puts me at or a little bit behind BOF/CRS, which is where I like to be. The PE just happens to put me in this zone with a +2.5. Given the ski's design and mold lines, and its use as a twin tip, +2.5 works well for many other reasons as you noted. The long shallow tip pretty much negates the +2.5 in soft snow as far as I can tell, so one possible downside to a forward mount is alleviated to a large extent. I skied the PEs in spring snow a couple days ago, and they were extremely well balanced. They are easily my favorite ski in that condition.
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
Then let me say I have owned 2 85mm waisted PE with one mounted on the '0" line and one +2. The original pair was damn good high speed charger in any type of rough snow, heck even in powder it rocked.
End of discussion....
post #19 of 27
PE's rock! I had mine mounted +2 and +5. They area tad heavy for zipper line runs on icy bumps. But are fantastic as an all around ski. I don't think they ski especially short. They are possibly the best ski ever under 200 bucks! I paid 187.00!!
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
As an example, the Elan free-ride skis of a couple years ago (Mag12, M666, etc) had a very forward mounting line. If I went to a zero mount on those skis, I would actually be ahead of a BOF/CRS matchup by 8-10mm. Someone with really large boots would be even farther ahead. Whether they knew it or not, those skis were putting people on or ahead of a BOF/CRS mount when they mounted on the line. The skis felt a lot better for me when I went back farther (stepping along the fusion system rack) to get slightly behind BOF. With the standard mount, the tips felt too short in powder and the tails felt too long on groomed snow (=backseat feel).
My 192 M777's have a midsole line a bit forward. This is because of a soft tail flex. That's just how the ski is designed. They ski perfectly fine mounted on the line. It's actually kind of nice to not have too much swing weight on a ski that heavy.

Again, I don't buy the BOF method.
post #21 of 27
Wow! Amazing the results you can get when ask a simple question like how long the skis actually ski.
post #22 of 27
I am liking the 179 PE. I have mine mounted on the rear line and it works well just about anywhere. I have noticed that in challenging conditions, if I ski standing upright / centered / low edge angles the ski feels really short. But if I get forward, more weight on the tongues of the boot and stay aggressive higher edge angles the early rise tip comes into play and the ski feels true to size and more stable. Not super damp but they will get through some icier baked / refrozen crap.
post #23 of 27
We have 2 PE's in the family (wife & son). I'd say they ski longer than their advertised length. K2 measures their ski length differently from most other manufacturers. They are typically 3-4cm longer than their advertised length.

Compare this to Volkl which ski (3-4cm) shorter than their marked length.

But getting back to the original question. If you already have the PE's, which IMHO is the best ski in it's category, why not go for something completely different. A hard snow carver or a wider powder ski. Get some variety into your quiver.
post #24 of 27
To ACTUALLY ANSWER RNaka's question, I've skied the PE and loved it- but did not buy it due to my concern about topsheet durability. The two other skis I can personally recommend to you based on similarity of performance and "awesomeness" is indeed the Watea 84, and the Head Mojo 90.

The watea differs in that it feels far more solid than the PE when you're on it. The Watea behaves as if it has no speed limit, holds a crazy edge and simply smashes through the crud. I believe this would be a great spring ski, as the heavy snow requires a heavy tool, and yes, the watea also feels heavier than the PE. Very solid. Cool see-thru topsheets to wood core too. Think supercharged benz- heavy, solid, fast but with a little less leeway in tight corners.

The Mojo 90 however, is more similar to the PE in that it is very light, lots of pop and feels super nimble- I own a pair and love them ('08 in a 176 & I'm 25, 5'9" and 170ish)) in every kind of condition I've been on since I got them. They have a little extra width to give you more usability in pow and if you bring them out west, but the still hold a hell of an edge on the boilerplate out here in the east. They may not be as stable as the Wateas at high speeds, but I like them more for their agility in tight places and their uncanny ability to make me smile from ear to ear in the freshies. If you love your PEs, think of almost the same ski, just with more float and a bit more stability. And you keep the upturned tails for the sweet roostertails and switch riding. Simple tsunami-design topsheets with cool color-flip bases. Think Supercharged Lotus Elise - light, agile and quick with a good top end, but emphasis on fun and twisties. I got mine with bindings a few months ago for about $550 delivered so I'm sure you could find them for cheaper now.

PM me if you have any other specific questions about these particular skis. Good luck and happy hunting!

Oh, and don't be suprised if your simple questions always turn into pissing contests, that happens alot.
post #25 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoWork View Post
To ACTUALLY ANSWER RNaka's question, I've skied the PE and loved it- but did not buy it due to my concern about topsheet durability. The two other skis I can personally recommend to you based on similarity of performance and "awesomeness" is indeed the Watea 84, and the Head Mojo 90.

The watea differs in that it feels far more solid than the PE when you're on it. The Watea behaves as if it has no speed limit, holds a crazy edge and simply smashes through the crud. I believe this would be a great spring ski, as the heavy snow requires a heavy tool, and yes, the watea also feels heavier than the PE. Very solid. Cool see-thru topsheets to wood core too. Think supercharged benz- heavy, solid, fast but with a little less leeway in tight corners.

The Mojo 90 however, is more similar to the PE in that it is very light, lots of pop and feels super nimble- I own a pair and love them ('08 in a 176 & I'm 25, 5'9" and 170ish)) in every kind of condition I've been on since I got them. They have a little extra width to give you more usability in pow and if you bring them out west, but the still hold a hell of an edge on the boilerplate out here in the east. They may not be as stable as the Wateas at high speeds, but I like them more for their agility in tight places and their uncanny ability to make me smile from ear to ear in the freshies. If you love your PEs, think of almost the same ski, just with more float and a bit more stability. And you keep the upturned tails for the sweet roostertails and switch riding. Simple tsunami-design topsheets with cool color-flip bases. Think Supercharged Lotus Elise - light, agile and quick with a good top end, but emphasis on fun and twisties. I got mine with bindings a few months ago for about $550 delivered so I'm sure you could find them for cheaper now.

PM me if you have any other specific questions about these particular skis. Good luck and happy hunting!

Oh, and don't be suprised if your simple questions always turn into pissing contests, that happens alot.

Thanks,

Exactly what I wanted to know! What do you think of the Mojo's in the bumps?
post #26 of 27
Whatever anyone says, PE's ski short, all twin tips do, sure they have some sidecut, but long tips and tails, they ski short.
post #27 of 27

I heart my Mantras

I got them to replace a pair of PEs I broke. I'm actually not too into the idea of PE as good crud-buster - I had mine mounted on the freeride line and I felt like I had a really hard time getting them to hold a line in crud, and they had a disturbing tendency to get caught up in soft, sticky snow. Granted I was skiing a really short pair - 169cm - at the time, but my brother's 179s felt very similar to me. Just more soft ski.

If you already have PEs, I don't see why you should get another pair. I'd be surprised if the new sidewall material has changed them that much. Compared to the PEs, the Mantras feel like a lot more ski, are much stiffer, much more stable at speed, and favor a larger-radius turn. I don't have as much fun in the moguls as I did on the Enemies, because the skis are more work to navigate through them and I don't think I get as much of a rebound, but they're not unmanageable either. Outside of moguls, they make pretty much everything ski smoother. They're less forgiving of errors in technique than the Enemies, but I feel a lot more confident landing from jumps on them. They're also more fun on a cold morning when the off-piste seems like a bad idea - they're quite carvey on a groomer. I'm quite happy to travel with just one pair of skis now. Of course, YMMV depending on your skiing style. A lot of people think they're way too damp, and feel dead.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion