or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Powder Skis for my Wife
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Powder Skis for my Wife

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Hey, I need some help. I am looking for some new powder skis for my wife. Currently, she is skiing some of the old K2 Phat Luvs 154. She says they are heavy and not as quick as she would like.

Her specifics:
5' 2"
105 lbs

current quiver
Volkl AC
Rossi B3W - everyday ski
Phat Luv

She can ski everything. We ski in Tahoe and spend most of our time at Sierra at Tahoe and Kirkwood. At Sierra, she skis bump runs, Jacks Bowl, trees, back gates, etc. At Kirkwood, she has skied the whole mountain. She prefers bump runs over groomers.
So, she is a great skier. She prefers GS and slalom turns over all out speed.

What she doesn't do: Huck cliffs and be a speed demon.

I am looking for a ski that would be great on powder days, soft powdery bumps say day old powder, and maybe trees with day or two old powder.

The skis I am looking at are:
Volkl Kiku
Line Pandora
Rossi Voodoo
K2 Gotback

I like the Kiku but, after researching it appears that it takes a lot of input. When I felt it at the shop it seemed as soft as the pandora. I am sure she can ski all the skis above, but, would like to find the right fit.

Any help would be appreciated.
post #2 of 13
Calling Rachel! 

K2 Misbehaved.....  I beleive this is a women's Obsethed, I was very impressed in this ski.
post #3 of 13
Ha, yeah, the MissBehaveds are a blast and are really similar to the Gotbacks, and I think a bit narrower than the Obsetheds. I would definitely recommend them -- they're super energetic, definitely not heavy, and just a ton of fun. I skied the whole mountain at Jackson Hole on them and had an absolute blast. I also prefer shorter turns and these were great in that respect. The little bit of rocker makes them really easy to get up on edge and turning even though they're 98 underfoot. I am also not a speed demon, but these skis really inspire confidence and get you going faster. I'd definitely have her try these in place of or in addition to the Gotbacks.
post #4 of 13
Thread Starter 
Thanks, I will have to cehck that one out also.
post #5 of 13
At her height/weight, the S3 is probably the clear leader.

The Kiku is another great choice. It handles like this year's goat ('cause it is). I'm not sure why anyone would say it needs a lot of input.

And a few cheeseburgers...
post #6 of 13
One of the women that works at our shop bought the Gotback this year thinking it would offer her an improvement over her Phat Luv in deeper snow. She ended up thinking that it didn't give her much. (she's also a small lady) While the Phat Luv is not a particularly heavy ski, if the wife thinks it is, I'd pass on the Gotback as it is probably the same guts as the ski she has (depending a little on which version PL she's got).

The Kiku like the Gotama seems to be a hit or miss for the folks we've demoed them to. Some folks take to the continuous rocker like a fish to water. Some don't and end up preferring something with a conventional camber underfoot such as the Pandora, Rossi BC 110, or the S3. Given her small stature, the S3 could be a great choice if she can get past the teenish graphics. Jessica (our employee) just skied a 2011 Blizzard Crush as was all giddy about it. That's what she is going to get to replace her Gotbacks. The only reason I mention it is that the Crush (and the Men's version) ski very similarly to the S3.

If wider seems appealing, the Pandora has been more universally appreciated than the Kiku and is available in shorter sizes.

post #7 of 13
Thread Starter 
 thanks for the input. I hadn't really thought about the S3. Do you think there is enough float? She will be using these primarily when it dumps. Right now she uses her B3's on 6" days but, maybe she can change that up. I am leaning towards the Pandora only because the S3 seems a little more all mountain. Do any of you have a recommendtion on length? Do they ski short?
post #8 of 13
if she is  only 105 lbs , my guess is that it would be plenty of float...but my financee was in the same boat, worrying whether the S3 would be sufficient as a powder-specific ride, and she is 5'2, 120# (perhaps slightly less advanced skill-wise vs. your wife)....so she ended up getting the Voodoo Pro BC110 166cm. to be safe, and it has more than lived up to expectations.  For your wife, at only 105 lbs., she would likely be fine with the BC110 @ 159cm for powder-specific.  Thing is, the BC110 @ 159cm. is actually virtually the same ski as the S3 @ 159cm!..just different top sheet, and maybe a slightly different layup, but the same dimensions and rocker profile.  THe BC110  @166cm is 105mm underfoot, and  @176cm.it goes to 110mm underfoot.  The BC110 can be had for around 520-550$ on sale right now in a 159cm.  The S3 159cm can be had for a bit less : closer to 400$.  So if she can stand the decidedly male-targeted topsheet of the S3, it might be worth it.  If not, the BC110 159 is well worth the investment (and is a beautiful topsheet)...

My fiancee actually had a somewhat revelatory day this past weekend at Mammoth...she only took the BC110 with her on the trip, and the conditions ranged from crusty multiple-refrozen hardpack at June Mountain to a foot of mid-storm fresh, and there was hardly a moment that she felt she missed her 78mm. all-mountain/frontside ski (Head Great One 153).  The BC110 was far more versatile than advertised...at least for a light level 6/7 skier at moderate speeds.

FYI, the skidiva.com forum has a thread about the BC110, and there is a woman of nearly identical size/skill profile to your wife who has posted on it about her experience with the BC110 159cm.  You should check it out, perhaps even hit her up to get her thoughts.  There's also a woman with direct experience with the S3 who posts here, but she was on the 168.

Good luck
post #9 of 13
Thread Starter 
Thanks, I will have to see what she can demo this weekend. It's suppose to dump.
post #10 of 13
Thread Starter 
I am still searching for decent feedback on the Line Pandora '10. I can't seem to find any.
post #11 of 13
Demoed the Line Pandora in 7" of fresh over a recent additional but set up 7-8" of thee-day-old. Me: 117 lbs, 5'5" type III skier. The skis were not as light as i expected from the reviews, although it could have been due to the rental bindings.

But they were playful, maneuverable and generally a real hoot. Contrary to what i'd read, they did just fine and were able to rail on the groomers and even on the little bit of hard pack. on groomers they wanted to make big, fast turns. They were stable and predictable in the crud - dust on crust and especially shined in the powder trees. every tree run that could be found of all steepnesses and tightness. Truly inspiring. tiny jumps were a blast too. Bumps were good - but all of them were soft so they'd be good on almost anything. The only issue i had was that they looked so short up front despite being longer than my every day skisi kept thinking i was going over the handle bars, but never did.

Have tried the Geisha also and found it a lot of fun. Same forward mounting issue. not as forgiving in the bumps and not as floaty, but would make a great all-mountain ski for someone who wanted a single ski for western conditions. It was excellent on the hard pack and even western "ice" as well as crud and fresh.

would love to ski the Rossi BC 110 but they are almost impossible to find on demo.
post #12 of 13
I have the S3 (168) and the Line Pandora '10 (172).  S3 wins on hardpack and trees because of its nimbleness and maneuverability.  Pandora wins in firm crud and jumps.  Both would be fine in untracked/soft chop for the OP's wife, given her weight.  I think the Pandora requires a bit more tip management than the S3 because of the forward mounting point.  I have Marker Schizos on the S3, so I just move the bindings back in powder. 

For the S3, I think a mounting point of +1 - 0 is optimal in powder.  I wouldn't mount a fixed binding behind 0 on the S3 because of the rockered tail.  It is skiable in soft snow at +2 or +3, but then you begin to get that over-the-bars feeling. 

If you go for the Pandora, buy from a shop that knows Line skis well and have an in-depth conversation about mounting point.  -1 or -2 might be optimal for folks who like to ski forwards in powder and don't huck. 

Given that the OP's wife already has the Phat Luvs and criticizes them for being heavy and slow, the S3 might be exactly what she wants. 

Or the S7, which comes in a variety of shorter lengths.  I don't like the 176 length because I think it feels squirrely on hardpack, probably secondary to its 14.5m turning radius.  Shorter may be better. 
post #13 of 13
Thread Starter 
Update: I ended up getting her the Pandora's because I got a great deal($400). She skied them last week in 18"-2' of fresh and quite a bit of chop. They were much more responsive than her Phat Luv's. She dug that. She ripped through the trees with ease. They had plenty of float. They were surprisingly good in soft bumps. Actually, she was ripping the soft bumps. She had a smile and said she just hung on for the ride. Her description was "really fun." I guess that's all we can ask for.
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 › Powder Skis for my Wife