EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › opnions on lenght for dynastar trouble maker
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

opnions on lenght for dynastar trouble maker

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
im 6'4 about 240. Im at a skill level 7 or in between intermediate and advanced. I have been sking on some k2 5500 unlimiteds for the last 5 years, and i want to do more bumps and start riding the park. i have an oppertunity to purchase the troublemakers in a 175. Im unsure if thats going to be too short, i know the 181s would be ideal. Im going out to copper in a couple of weeks but other than that i ski mostly in michigan, with the exception of a yearly trip out west. any suggestions would be great thanks!
post #2 of 10
175cm would be OK, 182cm would be a little better... if you're getting a really good deal get the 175cm, if not hold out for a 182cm. It won't make a HUGE difference.
post #3 of 10
At your height and weight, you will find the 175cm Troublemaker to be a bit of a noodle. I am 6 ft, 175 lb, intermediate to advanced. I have the original Troublemaker (78mm waist). It works well as my do-everything ski. Later model years went wider in the waist, but I think you will overpower the TM as it is fairly soft. The Big Trouble may be a better choice for you as it is stiffer in the mid-section than the TM, but with a softer tip and tail that make for easy handling. There should be a few BT's kicking around on ebay at good prices. I have the Big Trouble (176 cm long, 92 cm waist) and actually like it a bit better than the TM. The BT has a full-rise tail, making for a shorter running surface, so it feels shorter on the groomers than the TM, but with better performance in deep and cut-up snow. You would probably do best on the 183cm.
post #4 of 10
Thread Starter 
gimmiesnow did you find the tm to be a decent all mountain ski? what did you mainly ski with it?
post #5 of 10
I should mention that my TM is the first edition, with the dark green irridescent finish. Newer versions of the TM are a bit wider and possibly stiffer. I ski mostly at the coastal ski resorts around Vancouver, British Columbia, so conditions are very changeable, sometimes going from fresh powder to slush to chunky refrozen snow, all in the space of one day. The Troublemaker has a softish flex, not as soft as some twin-tips, and it is forgiving. I don't do a lot of park skiing, but I like to explore and get into the trees, and being easy to toss around the TM works well there. It was designed as a trick ski but makes a decent all-mountain ski. It won't give you that "riding-on-rails" feeling you get from a true carver on the groomed, and it won't hold up all that well at really high speeds. But being easy and forgiving, it will give you the confidence to do things and go into places you wouldn't consider on the old K2 5500 (I had a pair, the TM is a totally different and much better ski). If you want mainly an all-mountain ski, I would recommend the 182. You will likely outgrow the 175 in a hurry once you see how much fun you're having and start to push yourself a bit. But if you are wanting to get into the park and build up some skills there, it may be better to start off with the 175cm as that length will be better in jumps and spins. If you are entirely new to the whole twin-tip thing, try to demo a few pair because they will feel a lot different than the old straight boards like your 5500.
post #6 of 10
Thread Starter 
thank you for the excellent advice, you have given me some good things to think about, i think im going to hold off and wait for some 181s to come around.
post #7 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by soccermeister2 View Post
I have been sking on some k2 5500 unlimiteds for the last 5 years, and i want to do more bumps and start riding the park.
I'm 5'8", 170 and bought the previous generation TM (narrower waist) solely for bumps ...
Wow, that sounds much more impressive than it is meant to be!
The fact is that I have little experience with bumps and I read many times that the TM was a great ski for learning bumps. So I found an inexpensive pair of 165s and had them mounted up for a couple of days last season. They certainly are the easiest ski that I have had in moguls and they are light and easy to move around. Everywhere else though, they seem too short and much less stable than my PEs. In my opinion, the 165s for me are a great mogul learning ski, but not much else.
At your size, if you are looking for a more versatility, I would think that the 182 would be a better choice.
post #8 of 10
If you are not set on TM's, and want to continue in the K2 theme, you should definitely consider the Public Enemy. There are lots of Public Enemy fans on this site, so check out some of their comments. You are going to be amazed at the difference between the old 5500 and the PE.
post #9 of 10
Thread Starter 
i was also looking at the rossi scratch ghetto in the 181 size, ive read a lot of good and bad(mainly edges are weak and break). still think this a good ski for my application.
post #10 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmesnow View Post
If you are not set on TM's, and want to continue in the K2 theme, you should definitely consider the Public Enemy. There are lots of Public Enemy fans on this site, so check out some of their comments. You are going to be amazed at the difference between the old 5500 and the PE.
I would second the recommendation that you look elsewhere for a twintip and consider the PE or the Head Mojo 90. 240 lbs. is going to turn the TM into a noodle. The PE and Mojo are considerably stiffer and would be better at your size.

Mike
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 › opnions on lenght for dynastar trouble maker