EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Nordica Conquer v K2 Apache Recon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nordica Conquer v K2 Apache Recon

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
My wife is 5.7'   140lb   Level 7-8   Currently skiing 170 cm Apache Recon(unisex model)  Likes the ski and skis it well with no problems. Also skis 163cm  2009 Burnin Luv Loves that.  Thought she might upgrade the Recon for a Nordica  Conquer 170 cm.How does this ski compare to the Recon in terms of skiability, edge control,and as a general  all round ski . Any thoughts on length. Thinks there is too much overlap between the Recon (78mm) and the Burnin Luv(70mm) The Nordy may be better off piste(84mm)  ?
post #2 of 20
 I can't say much about the Recon, but I have skied  the Conquer in several different year models and really enjoyed it.
IMO you can't go wrong with that ski.

My stats:
5'6" 130 ish lbs, level 8 skier(I'm inclined to say level 7 but folks who ski with me say I sell myself short)
post #3 of 20
 The Conquer might be a bit long at 170.  I ski the Jet Fuel, same ski/men's version, in a 170 and I'm a bit bigger than her.  I know a few ripping women who use the Conquer and love it.  I think they are on 163 cm.  I think the Conquer is a lot more ski than the Recon or the Burnin Love, both of which are great skis by the way.
The Conquer will be a lot stiffer than the Recon and I believe that it has more sidecut.  I was using the Jet Fuel as a one quiver ski untill I got the Gotomas.  I found the JF to be a bit stiff for powder and bump skiing although it does work.  It was really good on groomers and harder snow because of the two sheets of metal.  The ski is also very heavy, partly because of the binding.  BTW I love how the binding on the Conquer says SEX on the toe piece.  I think the weight of the ski and the stiffness and width made it a good crud buster.  I think that the Conquer will be superior to the Burnin Love in edge grip on hard snow.
post #4 of 20
 You might also consider the Raider, a lighter version of the Recon with the same dimensions. The Lotta Luv is the woman's version too. 
post #5 of 20
If she likes a Recon, she'll hate a Lotta Luv.  At least I did.  Felt like a limp noodle.  I imagine the Raider would also feel wimpy. 
post #6 of 20
 Sibhusky, I'm not sure when you last skied these women's skis, but they are not the noodles that they were in past generations of women's skis.

There is a lot to the stats of the skier and technical skills as well.

Example:
I skied on the unisex versions of the Nordica Hot rod line in a demo, then I skied the women's versions.....(Conquer, Victory, Speed, Firefox)
I enjoyed the unisex skis very much, which was followed up with excitement at how much I enjoyed the women's line, specifically the conquer and Firefox.

Women's skis are not what they used to be. 
post #7 of 20
If the Conquer is a women's version of the Jet Fuel - with metal, that will be a very high performance ski.  I would also suggest that the length be discussed further in that 170 could be a lot of ski.This would be a less forgiving ski for a more advanced skier if it's got metal.
post #8 of 20
Thread Starter 
I think the Conquer is the womens version of the Afterburner not the JetFuel and is nowhere as near demanding. It has carbon in it not metal I believe
post #9 of 20
That makes sense.
post #10 of 20
I suggest Xplorer if she likes the Recon and wants something more burly?
post #11 of 20
I admit the last time I was on a Lotta Luv it was maybe four years back. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

 Sibhusky, I'm not sure when you last skied these women's skis, but they are not the noodles that they were in past generations of women's skis.

There is a lot to the stats of the skier and technical skills as well.

Example:
I skied on the unisex versions of the Nordica Hot rod line in a demo, then I skied the women's versions.....(Conquer, Victory, Speed, Firefox)I enjoyed the unisex skis very much, which was followed up with excitement at how much I enjoyed the women's line, specifically the conquer and Firefox.

Women's skis are not what they used to be. 
 
post #12 of 20
 I'm pretty sure that the conquer is the womens version of the Jet Fuel and has 2 sheets of metal.  170 is a lot of ski.
post #13 of 20
I don't have my notes for the demo time I spent, but  IIRC I skied this in a 170 ish and had a blast.

Keeping in mind that I demoed and I'm not sure if it would have exhausted me in that length after skiing on it all day.
post #14 of 20
I am 5"8, 140 and I ski the Nordica Victory in the 162.  There is quite a bit of difference in demoing a ski for a few runs and skiing it day in and day out in all conditions.  I have skied the Victory in every condition.  It is very grippy on the groomers, busts through the crud and does well in a few inches of powder. The Victory is a heavy ski.  I think the 170 would be too long for me.  The Victory has a much different feel than the Burnin Luv.  I think the Conquer would do well off piste and in the crud.  I would not go longer than the 170 and the next shorter length may be fine.

I skied the Lotta Luv for several full days and it felt wimpy to me.  It did not do well in the crud.   I have the Phat Luv's and like them very much in the pow. 
post #15 of 20
Here are a few clarifications for ya'll.

The Conquer does not have metal. It is the Afterburner layup with and different mounting point and (according to the catalog) a different flex.

Generallllllllllllly.......................

Nordicas have a very different feel than K2s. For better or worse, they are more ski in each position. The rave on K2s is how easy going they are. The knock is.....how easy going they are. The Nordicas are not particularly stiff overall but they are firmer torsionally, heavier, and at least as damp as a K2 if not more so.

Yes, I ski women's skis (a lot of them.......I'm a girly mon) and I generally find that Nordica offers a great balance of overall and torsional stiffness. The Conquer is more ski than a Recon or Explorer without the harshness of say a Volkl or some Blizzis.

SJ
post #16 of 20
That was helpful.
post #17 of 20
I skied the unisex Jet Fuel and loved the way it just ploughed through everything and held an edge. (I'm 5'6"/130lbs female, 162cm ski). I'm still a novice off piste but I did have a go with this ski in Ischgl and it was good but I felt maybe a bit too 'hefty'. And it seemed it would take some skiing through the bumps. I have been thinking about buying the women's Conquer or Victory. I thought maybe they would be a touch lighter?
post #18 of 20
 Go Conquer.......that ski will likely fit your quiver nicely Dartmoorskier!
post #19 of 20
Thread Starter 
My wife pulled the trigger on the 170  Conquers . We just finished a week at Thredbo , Australia. 15 inches of fresh plus packed and windblown powder with a little hardpack in the mix. These skis just ate everything with ease. She just loves them. Thanks for your input mates Great help
post #20 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by powder roo View Post

My wife pulled the trigger on the 170  Conquers . We just finished a week at Thredbo , Australia. 15 inches of fresh plus packed and windblown powder with a little hardpack in the mix. These skis just ate everything with ease. She just loves them. Thanks for your input mates Great help
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 › Nordica Conquer v K2 Apache Recon