EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Salomon Czar or Line Pandora as dedicated Sierra Pow Ski for my Wife?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Salomon Czar or Line Pandora as dedicated Sierra Pow Ski for my Wife?

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
My wife's Aura's haven't been the deep snow ski we were hoping they would be. She had trouble keeping her tips up on heavy pow days. In addition to getting her a few lessons this season I've had my eyes on the Line Pandora as a replacement candidate with more float. Now I see the Czar is available in a 166.

Are there any women out there that either skied the Czar last year or plan to buy a pair this year?

Would anyone care to make an educated guess as to whether the Pandora or the Czar would be a better pow ski for the Sierra Nevadas?

She's a lvl 7-8, 5'6", 120 lbs.

Thanks in advance for the help!

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 25
i'm only extrapolating from limited experience with longer, loosely associated models, but i have briefly owned the line sir francis bacons (slightly wider, longer, men's version of the pandora) and i currently have an unmounted pair of salomon rockers sitting directly behind me.

the sfb's were a very soft ski (and the pandora will be even more-so), so float will NOT be an issue for a 120 pounder. being considerably heavier, myself, i DID find my sfb's to get knocked around more than i liked, so i got rid of them. but, fwiw, they did pretty well on groomers.

i have not skied the rockers, yet, but hand-flexing reveals them to be as burly as i had hoped. the czar, being narrower, shorter, and twin-tipped, is obviously going to be much more playful than the rocker, but from what i've heard, it still has plenty of heft to get the job done when the snow gets choppy (albeit not nearly in true CHARGING style, like the rockers would). the float will obviously also be fine for your wife's size, but they will almost certainly be better in the chop. i suspect their groomer performance might suffer a bit compared to the pandoras given their rockered tip, though.

once again, these are all extrapoloations. i think i have a vague idea of how these two skis will perform, but, once again, i have NO idea what kinds of forces a 120# woman experiences while skiing. another factor confounding this decision involves whether or not you keep the auras (which should bust crud just fine for a woman), because then crud-performance doesn't become such an important consideration. but, just to recap, i would speculate that the float should be more than enough on either ski, that the pandora would have a slight edge on groomers, and that czar would have the slight edge in crud.
post #3 of 25

Heavy Powder?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus_CA View Post
My wife's Aura's haven't been the deep snow ski we were hoping they would be. She had trouble keeping her tips up on heavy pow days. In addition to getting her a few lessons this season I've had my eyes on the Line Pandora as a replacement candidate with more float. Now I see the Czar is available in a 166.

Are there any women out there that either skied the Czar last year or plan to buy a pair this year?

Would anyone care to make an educated guess as to whether the Pandora or the Czar would be a better pow ski for the Sierra Nevadas?

She's a lvl 7-8, 5'6", 120 lbs.

Thanks in advance for the help!
The Aura's are a great powder ski, even in "Sierra Cement". I would demo the Pandora's...the Czar will probably be a little too much ski for her. Remember, a great skier with good fundamentals and technique can usually ski on any ski in any condition...spend your money on lessons.
post #4 of 25
http://momentskis.com/pika.html

I know they are 170 but the twin makes them a lot more manageable than most skis that length for a smaller person.
post #5 of 25
IMO, you have already overgunned her once so doing that again will probably not earn points. I'll make the same suggestion that I did last spring, keep her on something soft and easy. That speaks to the Pandora.

SJ
post #6 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
IMO, you have already overgunned her once so doing that again will probably not earn points. I'll make the same suggestion that I did last spring, keep her on something soft and easy. That speaks to the Pandora.

SJ
Overgunned? Me?

Never!

Soft and easy is more her style for sure. But she loves her Attiva AC3's - go figure.

At the time there really weren't many options out there for female-specific powder skis. She loves her Aura's versatility, but she had a horrible time in them last year during the big dumps. Really too stiff for really lightweight snow. Once again you've talked me down from the edge Jim. Now I'll just have to get myself some rockers!
post #7 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by olylady View Post
The Aura's are a great powder ski, even in "Sierra Cement". I would demo the Pandora's...the Czar will probably be a little too much ski for her. Remember, a great skier with good fundamentals and technique can usually ski on any ski in any condition...spend your money on lessons.
Thanks for your reply. Lessons are planned for this year. Last year I think she struggled with trying to muscle the ski too much and was unwilling to let gravity take over. Needless to say the Auras won and she hit the parking lot. Throwing more equipment at the problem is rarely the answer but I've experienced first hand how much more enjoyable a softer, wider ride can be in soft snow.
post #8 of 25
Thread Starter 
SierraJim,

Which would you say has a softer flex..the Phat Luv or the Pandora?
post #9 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukc View Post
once again, these are all extrapoloations. i think i have a vague idea of how these two skis will perform, but, once again, i have NO idea what kinds of forces a 120# woman experiences while skiing. another factor confounding this decision involves whether or not you keep the auras (which should bust crud just fine for a woman), because then crud-performance doesn't become such an important consideration. but, just to recap, i would speculate that the float should be more than enough on either ski, that the pandora would have a slight edge on groomers, and that czar would have the slight edge in crud.
Thanks lukc. I suppose crud performance isn't as important as I thought...even if we sell off her Aura's for the Pandora she's still got a bulletproof pair of skinny skis to fall back on.
post #10 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus_CA View Post

Which would you say has a softer flex..the Phat Luv or the Pandora?
I've skied both - the Pandora is softer by far. I didn't care for the Phat Luv at all; compared to the Pandora it was a dead plank.
post #11 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrophobia View Post
I've skied both - the Pandora is softer by far. I didn't care for the Phat Luv at all; compared to the Pandora it was a dead plank.
Awesome...thanks!
post #12 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrophobia View Post
I've skied both - the Pandora is softer by far. I didn't care for the Phat Luv at all; compared to the Pandora it was a dead plank.
Dead spot on target.

SJ
post #13 of 25
Thread Starter 

Bump for more looks.  The Pandora wasn't the answer.  She still didn't quite have the float she was looking for.  We're still considering a rocker for next year, be it the 166 Czar or the 2010 (rockered) Pandora.

 

I'm not sure I overgunned her with the Aura.  I found a deal on a pair of Roxy Black Magic's that imo are too stiff but she loves them.  It appears she prefers a beefy ride, but I'm not sure what female specific or unisex wide boards combine float and maneuverability in tight spaces while providing adequate stability.  I'm a little surprised Line decided to keep the 162 and 172 lengths.  Somewhere in between the two seems better since they added the rocker...that's why we're still looking at the Czar.

post #14 of 25

Keep your eye on Tramdock as the 166 Czar has been showing up for $399 several times over the past week.  Just showed up again an hour or so ago.  Not a super fantastic price, but the lowest I've seen.

 

I was considering the 182 Czar for myself as a novice powder skier based on recommendations made by SierraJim and others here, but ended up going with the K2 Anti Piste. 

post #15 of 25

Hi, let's dig this oldie out...

Looking for a pair of 100% powder skis for my wife. Line Pandora 2012 VS K2 Missdirected 2013... I stopped on them because reviews are very positive about them and I like graphics.

My wife has Fischer RX8 165 R13m and skis almost only groomers. She is 178cm tall and weights about 80kg. 

 

What length should I take? Is 160 - 165 too short to float? 170?

I want to get skis which feels as close as possible to RX8 but on powder, that's why I am thinking of wide and short ski rather than 175+ with 85 waist...

post #16 of 25
She's 80kg and pretty tall. These are not stiff technical carving skis. Go longer. If I recall, the pandora is a 172 and the K2 169 in the longest lengths. PM Trekchik as well for her thoughts.
post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

She's 80kg and pretty tall. These are not stiff technical carving skis. Go longer. If I recall, the pandora is a 172 and the K2 169 in the longest lengths. PM Trekchik as well for her thoughts.


These skis will be only for powder days. RX8 isn't going anywhere :)

I want to give her confidence on powder with skis that are light, float well and are easy to control. I am buying her skills and confidence... I admit that :)

post #18 of 25
Again, she's 80kg and 178cm. Assuming she's a decent skier, around 170-175 would be a better length for a powder ski. Again, PM Trekchik. She's in the business. There are other great skis out there that would work equally as well.
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by irafar View Post

Hi, let's dig this oldie out...

Looking for a pair of 100% powder skis for my wife. Line Pandora 2012 VS K2 Missdirected 2013... I stopped on them because reviews are very positive about them and I like graphics.

My wife has Fischer RX8 165 R13m and skis almost only groomers. She is 178cm tall and weights about 80kg. 

 

What length should I take? Is 160 - 165 too short to float? 170?

I want to get skis which feels as close as possible to RX8 but on powder, that's why I am thinking of wide and short ski rather than 175+ with 85 waist...

Sorry for adding confusion to the mix, but......

when you have powder what sort of powder is it?

  • Light and fluffy
  • High moisture and heavier
  • Inconsistent and mixed

 

What sort of skier is your wife? (you can pick more than one, or add to the description)

  • Confident
  • Timid 
  • Capable
  • Technical
  • Hard Charger
  • Light footed and finesse
  • Athletic

 

The sort of ski and length depends on this. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

She's 80kg and pretty tall. These are not stiff technical carving skis. Go longer. If I recall, the pandora is a 172 and the K2 169 in the longest lengths. PM Trekchik as well for her thoughts.

Mark is on target with the size of the ski in relation to the skier.

 

For instance I'm 5'6"(167 cm)  135 lbs (61kg) and I ski powder skis in the 170 ish length.  When I go shorter it feels squirrelly and unstable.

When I go longer it feels unmanagable.

 

Getting the right length will make a difference in how stable she feels.

post #20 of 25

About the snow... 25 cm (10 in) is a serious dump. Usually one or two per winter. Usually there are 10 to 15 cm of fresh snow. Nothing serious, but it is possible to learn to ski.

Once a year we try to go skiing to mountains - Austria, Slovakia, Georgia. If we are lucky, we get a snowfall. Usually the snow is heavy since Europe gets it from Atlantic storms.

 

My first and last (at least I hope so) experience with ski rental was in Georgia. They weren't waxed... piste skis were too short and soft, powder skis were too heavy, sinking and stiff (Rossignol Bandit 108)... I don't want to rent skis anymore...  And I don't want my wife to rent skis - she doesn't deserve it.

That's why I bought http://www.epicski.com/products/pale-l4y-wicked these skis for myself and now I am looking for something for my wife.

 

About my wife. She is skiing for 8 years. Under 20 days per winter. She skis groomers fast - personal best is 93km/h measured by AlpineReplay android app. But she goes faster than she should. When it comes to bad visibility, heavy and chopped snow she loses her confidence and struggles.

As for powder - she is a complete beginner. She has skied one real powder day.

She needs skis which would give her confidence... Sort of extra skill... When she gets confidence, she goes faster, skis float better, they are easier to turn -> happy wife -> happy me :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

Sorry for adding confusion to the mix, but......

when you have powder what sort of powder is it?

  • Light and fluffy
  • High moisture and heavier
  • Inconsistent and mixed

 

What sort of skier is your wife? (you can pick more than one, or add to the description)

  • Confident
  • Timid 
  • Capable
  • Technical
  • Hard Charger
  • Light footed and finesse
  • Athletic

 

The sort of ski and length depends on this. 

 

Mark is on target with the size of the ski in relation to the skier.

 

For instance I'm 5'6"(167 cm)  135 lbs (61kg) and I ski powder skis in the 170 ish length.  When I go shorter it feels squirrelly and unstable.

When I go longer it feels unmanagable.

 

Getting the right length will make a difference in how stable she feels.

post #21 of 25

If you're leaning to the Missdirected, go with the 169

http://www.epicski.com/products/2013-k2-missdirected

 

If you're leaning toward the Pandora go with the 172

http://www.epicski.com/products/2013-line-pandora

 

The length will give her more stability at speed and are a better size for her over all.  Given that your snow conditions resemble the Sierra powder that we experience, I'm pretty confident in the suggested length. 

post #22 of 25

Finally I can report the result...

I was ready to click the "Pay now" button for K2 Missdirected but then I found Line Celebrity 100. I didn't find Pandora (172 lenght) in Europe, but shipping and taxes makes US too expensive.

Talked to girls in the office about the graphics and they gave Thumbs Up for Line Celebrity and Thumbs Down for K2 Missdirected.

I bought skis from http://www.edgeandwax.co.uk/ they came waxed and wrapped very well. It took me half an hour to unpack them...

 

As for bindings... they are Elan... Local ski store sells them under the number "ELW 11.0 wide brake"... They got me with that heel - its soft :eek.

These are the only numbers on box

post #23 of 25
Fuzzy heel

Does Phil have one of those in his collection TC ?
post #24 of 25

That's a good ski for this situation.  Mostly because its a great all mountain ski with an off piste bias.  She won't be skiing rental skis anymore and the consistency will inspire her to discover more of the mountain. 

While the Celebrity 100 isn't a strong powder ski, it will be okay for the snow depth you described and if you get that incredible powder day you can always demo or rent a super fun shaped ski.  

 

This is a very good choice.  

 

I haven't seen that binding, but I'm sure its fine and the soft heel looks.........well.........soft. :D

post #25 of 25
Mounted the bindings. The set looks really nice.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion

Gear mentioned in this thread:

EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Salomon Czar or Line Pandora as dedicated Sierra Pow Ski for my Wife?