EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Thoughts on Pandora, Missbehaved, Kiku, Gotback, Geisha, Nemesis, and others for a second ski?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thoughts on Pandora, Missbehaved, Kiku, Gotback, Geisha, Nemesis, and others for a second ski?

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Just got back from a weekend of mid-blizzard powder skiing at Mammoth with my fiancee.  She is in the market for ONE ski to complement her Head Great One 153cm. 70/30 type ski (essentially the women's version of the Head Monster im78).  Basically want a ski to use for any time it has snowed within a few days, will help her gain confidence in difficult 3-D + variable conditions.  She is unlikely to want more than 2 skis total considering the versatility of today's fatter skis.  (I personally am set with Elan 888 / Dynastar Huge Trouble quiver, and love how the HT can cover all the bases from a few inches of fresh plus....so perhaps something similar in function)

She is:
5'2"
120lbs
level 6 (perhaps lower in powder 2 + feet)
Skis at moderate speeds
Excellent coordination but only moderate strength/stamina
Mammoth, CA is "home" mountain

She demo'd the Rossignol Voodoo BC110 166 cm.(women's S7) for the weekend and liked it, but as usual, most of the women's powder-oriented demos in her size range got snatched up amidst the dump and she was not able to compare them to anything else. For those who are familiar with the following, how would they compare to BC110, in terms of :

Forgiveness/skiing @ moderate speeds
Ease of learning to ski in powder
Soft On Piste performance
Chowder/Crud/Heavy mixed conditions
Maneuverablity/Trees/Soft bumps
etc.

(don't forget suggested lengths!)
- Line Pandora
- Salomon Geisha
- Nordica Nemesis
- Volkl Kiku
- K2 Gotback
- Moment Pika
- Atomic Heaven n Hell
- K2 Missbehaved
- Elan Deep Spice

Any other similar models I left out, please chime in (Figure something high 90's in waist plus is ideal?)
post #2 of 29
Thread Starter 
BUMP.  No one knows how the Rossi BC110 compares to the Geisha, Pandora, or Nemesis? I know this forum is male dominated, but there's gotta be some of you out there that have at least second hand accounts from friends, girlfriends, wives, what have ya? How bout industry people?
post #3 of 29
Okay, if she's 5'2', 120# and tentative in powder, she's going to want something soft.  I'd say that eliminates the Nordica Nemesis and perhaps also the Moment Pika. 

The Volkl Kiku has reverse camber, but I'm thinking it might also be a bit stiff.  It's also heavier and therefore not as playful as some of the others.

I'm a big fan of tip rocker and early taper in powder skis.  I don't think full reverse camber is necessary if the flex is sufficiently soft and there's enough tip rocker.

I had last year's Line Pandora, and loved its liveliness and playfulness.  It was my go-to ski all last season.  It's modeled after the Sir Francis Bacon, which is a love-it-or-hate-it kind of ski.  The forward mounting point can feel strange; and sometimes led to tip dive in deep powder.  This year's Pandora has an extended tip, with rocker, and skis well in powder.  It is not especially fun in firm/icy conditions, but it is manageable.

I recently got the S3, which is the smaller version of the S7.  Note that the S7 itself actually comes in shorter lengths, so she doesn't necessarily need to get the "women's" version.  Anyway, I've really been enjoying the S3.  I bought it as a park ski, but it seems to be the perfect PNW variable conditions ski - stable in firm/icy/chunder and playful in powder pockets.  So she might consider the S3 if the Voodoo/S7 seemed like too much ski.
post #4 of 29
Thread Starter 
Acrophobia,
thanks for the feedback.  She did not find the BC110 166cm's to be too much ski.  She found them to be quite easy to ski, in fact.  The only concern with them was whether they would leave much quiver gap between the Head Great One and if they would be the right ski to help her ski with more confidence in the heavy, tracked up conditions you tend to find during and after storms down here in Mammoth.  There seems to be a consensus that the Rossi will shine in fresh uncut snow...with the chopped up stuff, it becomes a question of, will the BC110  allow her to skim over this stuff enough that she can let it fly a little, or is she gonna get thrown around?  Seems like going the other route and getting a wide, crud-BUSTING ski, might compromise deep snow ability, and might be too burly and tiring.

As I mentioned, I myself went with the "compromise" with the Dynastar Huge Trouble, a ski that is not the BEST solution for deep snow, but very respectable, but excels at dealing with all the rest of the "difficult" conditions as well as "soft groomers", and have found that it is versatile enough that I literally use it 50% of the time, between my 2 skis....even up to a week after a snowfall.  The hope is to find something similar in usefulness for my fiancee.

The S3 looks intruiging...is the shape as radical as the BC110, just skinnier overall?  Why is it priced so much lower I wonder?  Anyway, sounds like maybe she should consider it, but I think it will be hard to find a demo.  Do you think she wll find much difference in float compared to the BC110?  And in what other areas do you think the S3 has an advantage?  Oh...and were you thinking 159 or 168?

THere is also the Voodoo BC90...but have not heard much feedback on that one...not even sure if it is a similar class of ski as the S3/S7/BC110 (hybrid rocker).
post #5 of 29
My wife skied the Kiku last year and liked it a lot.  I think it would leave a little less gap than the BC110, but maybe not be so good on the high end?

Last weekend the snow was pretty heavy and lot's of the kids were ripping on the clown shoes, S7's, JJ's, etc.  The tips really seam to ride up and over the crud.  I'm old school, but I think I may have to give these a new fangled things a try.  Everyone on the S7's was raving about them?
post #6 of 29
A little lady input for you, if it is not too late.
I am 5'2", 120lbs, athletic, aggressive advanced (but not expert) skier; my home mountain is Whistler.

I ski on a Volkl Kiku 162 which I love in the Pow and for about two days after the dump; as the snow gets skied out the Kiku is still get good, but it is not as effortless.  I was initially surprised and found the ski more forgiving than I expected based on the reviews.  However, you should plan on at least 80% off piste.  The Kiku can handle the on piste and crud when necessary but I find that after more than a couple of those types of runs my ankles and hips feel pretty beat up; this is partially attributable to the full rocker / no camber in the 2010 Kiku but I also think that my Marker Griffen bindings are an issue.  Also you cannot compare the 2009 and 2010 Kiku's; It is my understanding that the 2009 had a reverse camber, the 2010 does not; the 2010 is a full rocker, the 2009 was not - both won a lot of awards but they are different skis.

My other ski is currently a 2005 Scream Pilot 10; I am currently looking for a second ski for my quiver (the ultimate all mountain ski probably) and I have been demoing some of the other skis that you mention.  Here are my thoughts.  K2 Missbehaved was lively in the bumps and trees, it was also very respectable on a groomer (I yelped in joy my first few on piste turns); however I found this ski too soft in the powder.  In addition the tails felt really short, it wanted you to lean back to lift the tips in powder and traversing capability was okay, not great.  (Slight pressure on the Kiku will force the traverse up hill in soft snow, the Missbehaved held the level of the traverse.)  There were no Geisha's available to try, so I grabbed a Shogun 173; the ski was prob a bit too long for me, but that did not seem to be an issue.  Truthfully I found this to be a mediocre ski, it did everything okay but nothing really well; not bad on groomers, good in soft snow with crud, medium float capability in powder, okay in trees, traverse line seemed to fall, nothing special in powder.  Still waiting to try the S7 / Voodoo Pro BC110, S3 / Voodoo BC90 and Giesha.

In short, I love the Kiku it is fun and playful, great in powder, but you will need another ski.  I suspect that the Voodoo Pro BC110 is comparable if not better, I am still waiting to try! The Missbehaved and Shogun / Geisha will not be as good in powder but will provide more "all mountain" capability.
post #7 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by monologuist View Post

 There seems to be a consensus that the Rossi will shine in fresh uncut snow...with the chopped up stuff, it becomes a question of, will the BC110  allow her to skim over this stuff enough that she can let it fly a little, or is she gonna get thrown around?  Seems like going the other route and getting a wide, crud-BUSTING ski, might compromise deep snow ability, and might be too burly and tiring.
 

It's been my experience taht the weird conditions are where the S7 shines it's brightest.
post #8 of 29
 It would be ideal if you could get an 09 Kiku so she has the float she needs in the powder without having a rocker.

One more suggestion that may sound a bit off, but....
Next time you go skiing with her and there is a huge dump, invest in a lesson.
It may seem like a waste of a powder day to take a lesson, but a Powder Lesson would be a great way to ensure tons of fun on future powder days.
Trust me, the coaching I got when I had the good fortune of being in a clinic during a huge powder week was priceless!
post #9 of 29
Thread Starter 
thanks for the responses...keep them coming.  I think the list has been narrowed down to:
Voodoo BC110 166cm
Line Pandora 162cm.
Volkl Kiku 162cm. (2009/10)

Since the last I posted, she has gotten new boots and custom footbeds (2 sizes smaller than before!...Tecnica Attiva Pros), and it has made a tremendous difference for her in all conditions.  We had 3 days last week up in Mammoth at the beginning stages of an 8 foot snow week...fresh and tracked powder the entire time, up to 3 feet or so, and she was just on her Head Great Ones (im78's).  Up to 2 feet or so, she actualy managed fairly decently on these midfats, a marked difference from when she was in her old boots.  Once it was getting to 3 feet or so, things got a little tough for her though.  But it clarified to her that her current midfats are actually versatile enough that she would rather go for a 2nd ski that prioritizes deep snow performance, thus those 3 models above.

Unfortunately, the Kiku was not available for demo nor was the Pandora, anywhere up in Mammoth.  Can anyone wth experience with them
help shed some light?  The concern with the Kiku is that may be too burly for her at only 120 lbs and skiing at only moderate speeds and aggressiveness?  And with the Pandora, how is it going to compre to the Voodo BC110 in both fresh deep stuff and tracked out heavy conditions, with its more traditional design and modest rocker vs. the more radical design of the Rossi?  Some feedback on the Pandora makes it sound like a rather soft (perhaps too soft) ski, perhaps lacking in stability?
post #10 of 29
Another huge vote for the 07-09 Kikus.  They are a non-rocker powder ski which I think is important as they will allow your fiancee to get used to them outside powder then start venturing into the powder.  My girlfriend, who is powder-phobic, just started using a pair and in only a couple days went was skiing in powder over her boots and plowing through crud piles up to her knees.  The Kiku is a well-behaved, vestal ski that excels in powder.
post #11 of 29
Thread Starter 
I forgot, yet another possibility is the Salomon Czar.  Anyone care to compare it with the BC110, Pandora, and Kiku?
post #12 of 29
 I've skied the Salomon Czar and the 09 Kiku.  
The kiku had the float and fun factor that you'd want in a ski for that type of terrain, while the Czar was considerably damp, almost uninspiring.
As Always, YMMV.

FYI, My stats 5'6" 130 lbs.
My quiver:
09 Kiku in 168cm(105w)
Kastle FX84 168cm(84w)
Hart Beat 162 cm(77w)
post #13 of 29
Thread Starter 
Trekchic,
Would you consider the '10 Kiku to be on the burly side for a level 6 skier, 5'2, 120lbs? There seems to be conflicting reports on this...I've heard people say it is not a good choice for slower/lighter skiers? Then others who say this year's version was lightened up considerably instead of just a shorter Gotama?
post #14 of 29
 I'm 5'2", 120lbs, Level 6 skiing on the '10Kiku; it is a lot of ski and could get away from you if you are not an aggressive skier.  My weight on it is not an issue, but it performs better when you tackle the hill then just try to ride it easy.  Fun ski!!!!
post #15 of 29
 the new rockered kiku well out preform the old ones anywhere except  longer turns on groomers....short turns on groomers will even be easier on the new kiku....even rounded dynamic short turns

The volkl rocker is so sublte that you can just ski them normal but they are easier......

this is a katana skied by the first skier, the gotama.kiku has a very similar rocker profile and is narrower underfoot.

arcs on icey groomers



super quick in the trees(skier in green pants being chased)






In all honestly if i had a wife I wouldnt buy her anything not rockered for what you want her to do, it just makes sense and doesnt ski hardpack as bad as you would think in fact in some cases the rockered ski are actually quicker on hardpack off trail due to be PRE decambered already.

non rockered 3d snow skis are obsolete

acrophobia you should post your S3 review over here as well, when I was searching reviews yours on skidiva was one of the few that came up. I ll should have one posted for whenever my 186s get here.
post #16 of 29
 I skied the S7 today and loved it!  It was a bit short for me in 176, I'm 5'10" 165 lbs level 9.  The conditions ranged from moderate powder to cut up crud and bumps.  I skied some really tight trees and rock gardens.  Great ride!  Too short like I said, but the next size up 188? or the really big ones would be even more fun.  The sidecut (on the 176) will carve turns like a 150 or so ski and the rockered potion of the ski engages in deeper variable snow.  This makes the ski ski very short for it's length.  If I was buying a ski this in 188+ would be the one.  I might actually like it more than my Gotoma.
post #17 of 29
 Nice video Josh!  Really liked the second one a lot!  Gotta get me a helmet cam!
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

 It would be ideal if you could get an 09 Kiku so she has the float she needs in the powder without having a rocker.

I don't understand this. Why would non-rocker be preferable? If I were shopping for the Kiku it would be 2010 or bust.
post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

I don't understand this. Why would non-rocker be preferable? If I were shopping for the Kiku it would be 2010 or bust.

The newer Kiku is suppose to be stiffer and much more of a ski.  FirstTracks noted that they can get away from you.  The last thing someone who is timid in powder needs is a ski they have to worry about, also.  The 09 Kiku is a very well behaved ski.
post #20 of 29
Thread Starter 
 Lots of good feedback here..Sounds like the Kiku '10 is not the answer.  The Rossi Voodoo BC110 still seems like the most logical option, but it cost so dang much!  Hard to justify spending 700+$ on a ski that will get used only 20% of the time...and doesn't seem like the kind of thing that will be seen at discounts at the end of the season given how popular it is.  I wish there were a cheaper alternative to the BC110 for women (for men, you have the ON3P Billy Goat, for instance).  

There is the S3 koopman '10, which comes in a 168, I believe..but not sure how similar/different it is to the BC110 at 166...Certainly is a bit narrower (98mm underfoot I think?)...

Then there is the '10 Pandora, but I've seen very little feedback on it and it is hard to find a demo.
post #21 of 29
My advice is to suck it up and buy the BC110 or the S7.  The price tag hurts only once.  And then your fiancee will have a ski that makes her happy every time she takes it out.  Try to save a couple hundred bucks and you might wind up with a ski that pisses her off every time she skis it, and then she decides she doesn't like skiing and after you get married you wind up going to the beach for your vacations.

That said, the lower priced alternative to the BC110 is the S3.  It probably has enough float for her, depending on the depth and water content of the powder.  The 168 is probably the right length.
post #22 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrophobia View Post

My advice is to suck it up and buy the BC110 or the S7.  The price tag hurts only once.  And then your fiancee will have a ski that makes her happy every time she takes it out.  Try to save a couple hundred bucks and you might wind up with a ski that pisses her off every time she skis it, and then she decides she doesn't like skiing and after you get married you wind up going to the beach for your vacations.

That said, the lower priced alternative to the BC110 is the S3.  It probably has enough float for her, depending on the depth and water content of the powder.  The 168 is probably the right length.

Acrophobia
You've skied both the S3 and the BC110 right?  Would you say the S3 is basically the same ski but just skinnier?  Does it have pretty much the same flex profile and construction and rocker profile?  Because, it may very well provide enough float for her.  She is pretty petite.  For instance, she skies the women's Head Monster/Peak 78 and it seems to be able to function as a 50/50 ski for her, where as I have the men's version and it realistaiclly  it is a 70/30 ski for me at 5'11, 165 lbs, and really I use it more as a 90/10 frontside ski. 

I imagine the S3 would be even more nimble than the BC110 due to the narrower width...perhaps not as good in skied out powder or heavier new snow (which is what we usually get here in the Sierras)?  That would be my only concern...that the S3 would not be as good in crud and chowder...
post #23 of 29
Thread Starter 
For anyone following this thread, my fiancee ended up ordering a pair of Rossi Voodoo BC110's in a 166 length.  I was thinking of waiting til the off-season to find a deal on them, but our home mountain (Mammoth) is getting just slammed with snow this year, and it'd be a shame not to get the most out of it.  Ended up getting them for around 550$, which seemed like the best I could hope for given that the 166 seems like it may sell out everywhere (at least online) by the time sale season begins in the spring.

There was some waffling on whether to go with the 159 or the 166...her frontside ski is around 153, so figured she'd need to go 2 sizes up for this type of ski...

Now we will just have to decide where to mount and with what binding...Her frontside ski has Railflex bindings, so thinking of just mounting some RF plates on the Rossi's in order to have interchangeability between the two.  Alternative would be to mount some Griffons...Anyone have any ideas where to mount?  I believe the BC110's have a slightly different stock mounting line (more forward I think) than the S7's for some reason?
post #24 of 29
 IMHO Schizo is the way to go.
post #25 of 29
Thread Starter 
Just a quick note on something I discovered that seemed a little unusual with the Rossi BC110's :

Going from shortest to longest in lengths (159, 166, 176), not only do the dimensions change drastically (96, 105, 119 in width underfoot), but the turning radius goes from :
15.5m, 17.5m, 14.8m

Pretty strange that the turning radius would go longer then shorter as the sizes go up right?

For the S7 it goes : 17.5m (166), 14.8m (176), 17.5m (188), 22.5m (195)

For some reason, the 176 length got shortchanged!  It's no wonder I came across so many negative reviews of the S7 when it came out from people that had tried the 176.  

Anyone have a clue why they would do this, and are there other models where you see this with?

BTW, haven't decided on which binding to mount, but probably will be mounted at factory "0" point on the BC110, which is supposed to be slightly farther forward proportionally than on the S7, supposedly for "female-specific" reasons that are not clear to me...
post #26 of 29
""female-specific" reasons that are not clear to me..."

More weight aft.
post #27 of 29
i sure hope i dont have to ski in that BS!   too many trees, too close together.  lol. 
but thanks for the vid.  i was holding my breath when you went under that log across the path.  glad you made it out in one piece.
post #28 of 29
Hey Mono; I think you've made a great purchase.  My wife is similarly sized when compared to your "squeeze" but perhaps a wee bit further along the learning curve.  But we ski Squaw three days a week and love Mammoth (we will be there next week!).  The wife's daily driver is last year's Kiku, plus a Cosmo when it hasn't snowed in a while and this year's Pandora when its deep.  She skied this year's Kiku and totally passed on it, just as I was big time dissapointed with this year's Goat (I went back and bought last year's "day/night" after spending the better part of two years on the gold ones from the year before).  My powder ski is this year's Rossi Super 7 and I really wanted to get my wife to try the S7 or the Voodoo (good luck finding those in a demo fleet) because I am absolutely sold on the "hybrid" nature of the S7/Voodoo and I'm skiing the Super 7 2 to 3 days after a storm.  The Pandoras are absolutely great in the deep but she tends to get a little beat up on the groomed out stuff on the way back to the lift.  The problem for us is with the Kiku at 105 underfoot it didn't make much sense going to the Voodoo/S7 as a pow ski because at her length (166) they would be skinnier than the Kiku.  But that S7/Voodoo profile is really a good fit at Squaw and I'm confident it will be at Mammoth as well and I bet she skis them more days than perhaps you are thinking now (I also bet Volkl brings back the Goat and maybe the Kiku in "historical form" some day as some sort of anniversary version cause they sure didn't sell many of the new ones at Squaw).  At any rate the mounting points for the Voodoo and the S7 are pretty far forward so if you have directional, in bounds resort skiing in mind I would not go any further forward than "0" and keep an open mind to even going back a little bit.  I would email Rossi (they got back to me in a day) and tell them everything and see what they say.  We ski Griffons and Jesters partly due to the old Marker habit but they have little delta and this year's have a reduced stand height which is nice for a fat ski.  But I think you've made a great purchase; these things are stupid easy and fun to ski.   
post #29 of 29
 I've skied my S7s behind the line and it really drains the fun out of them. Depending on how much snow there is, I'll go between 0 and +3 (usually leave it at +1.5).
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 › Thoughts on Pandora, Missbehaved, Kiku, Gotback, Geisha, Nemesis, and others for a second ski?