EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › LINE Pandora vs K2 Missbehaved
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LINE Pandora vs K2 Missbehaved

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
Hi =)
I've been skiing on telemark for the last 14years, but to save my knees, I'm planning on buying alpine skis as well I found 50% sale on K2 and LINE, so now I'm wondering what to buy. In the shop they first of all recommended LINE Pandora (they only had 162cm) and second K2 Missbehaved (where they had 169cm) I am 167cm and weigh around 60kg. I will have Dynafit Vertical ST and boots: Dynafit Gaia TF-X. On telemark I ski fairly playful, but I'm an experienced skiier. I will probably ski a lot more aggressive in alpine though =). The skis are primarily for off piste, skiing in the wood and backcountry, but since this will be the only pair of alpine I will have they should also work fine in all kind of snow including the slopes, for the few times I actually ski in the slopes. 

I would very much appreciate all tips and comments =) 

In advance thank you very much 
post #2 of 11
I wouldn't get the Pandora if you're planning to do a lot of skinning.  It's very wide (115mm underfoot) which means the skins will be heavy and snow will pile up on the ski as you're skinning.  It's also harder to hold an edge on steeper ascents. 

If your plan is mostly to hike and do lift-accessed slackcountry, the Pandora is probably fine.  Although it is perfectly managable on piste, it is really more of a quiver ski than all-mountain.  The Missbehaved has a more reasonable waist width (98mm); but it is a twin tip, meaning attaching skins and trying to use your skis as an anchor will be a little more challenging. 

You might check out the "back" series of K2 - Gotback, Payback, She'sback, etc., which are really more backcountry-oriented than the Missbehaved.  The Gotback has a rockered tip, which is a really nice feature to have in soft, variable snow.  I'm not sure about the other 'backs. 

But if you're doing the Dynafit binding and boots thing, you owe it to yourself to check out Dynafit's skis as well.  The Dynafit Manaslu is a beautiful, light, nimble ski that is almost cheating on the uphill.  Because of the light construction, I'd keep it away from big hucks and rocks, but if you're a finesse skier, it might be exactly what you need.
post #3 of 11
 Acrophobia has some great suggestions

Rossi S3 are also a very cool ski for touring fairly light you can get in short lenghts and is very fun playful ski on all kinds of conditions. the dynafit womes skis are some of the lightest skis ever made though.

IMO if the skis are going to see a number of resort days Dynafits are not the way to go as they can rip pretty easily on hard snow/bumps hard snow in the backcountry is not hard snow inbounds.
post #4 of 11
Thread Starter 
what about k2 coomback (maybe gotback) or G3 zest??? would any of that be good for me?
WOuld pandora 162 become to short for me?  
post #5 of 11
She has 50% off Line and K2 so she wants to stick with those.

I've skied both Misbehaved in alpine touring gear (although it was more tour and not too much downhill), and the Pandora in full alpine. They are very, very different skis. No issues attaching skins to the misbehaved. The Pandoras are true twin tip, so they might be a bit of a pain in this area. I have very little experience with skins, so this is just my conjecture.

Pandora may be a bit heavy for touring and it is indeed very wide although totally nimble on the down hill ride. Despite being soft, it feels burly. The Misbehaved was lighter and more tinny, if that makes sense. less damp i suppose is the proper nomenclature.

Agree you might want to try the K2 Gotback. It is set up for touring/skinning. Haven't skied it myself but know a ripping woman who does and she loves it.
post #6 of 11
Thread Starter 

They did unfortunally not have gotback, but they mentioned that they actually had sir francis bacon in 172... Since pandora was so short would that be an option? or would they be to long? since they don't have early rice??

post #7 of 11
Thread Starter 
they also said they hade sir francis bacon in 172. Would that be and option, or would that be to long again considering they don't have early rice???? What else is the differense from pandora... Would they be okey as a girl ski???
Thanks=)
post #8 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by maddie View Post

Hi =)
I've been skiing on telemark for the last 14years, but to save my knees, I'm planning on buying alpine skis as well 

I would very much appreciate all tips and comments =) 

In advance thank you very much 
This is interesting to me, as I've been chatting with Twintip about her switch to Tele because she wants to save her knee(s).
She has skied the line and the missbehave.  I'll nudge her to look at this thread.
post #9 of 11
Thread Starter 

go from alpin to telemark to save her knees??? that I've never heard about..... (if she's not a hard core carver... don't know what's worst, carving or telemark???
but yes please ask her to check out this tread and so we can swope some info =)

post #10 of 11
Yup, tele is better on the knees.  Stated by several physical therapists, skier-orthopedists, etc, since it works the supporting muscles of the leg that help keep the knee healthy, and alpine doesn't do that too much, it just stresses knees. 

One of the prime exercises to rehab a knee is lunges, similar to the tele motion.

Alpine saves the leg muscles, for sure!  Just maybe not the knees.

Since you're doing mostly backcountry, I'd guess I'd do one of the K2's; either the Missbehaved or one from the "back" series...it seems like they'd be better (a little lighter?) for the uphill skin.  The "back" series skis also have a notch for skins.

If you're just going to be bombing downhill at a resort, then it wouldn't really matter; get the ski that speaks to you.
post #11 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by maddie View Post

they also said they hade sir francis bacon in 172. Would that be and option, or would that be to long again considering they don't have early rice???? What else is the differense from pandora... Would they be okey as a girl ski???
Thanks=)

The SFB = last year's Pandora 162.  It is definitely carvable on soft groomers, less fun on hardpack/ice.  Really more of a dedicated powder/backcountry jib kind of ski. 

The SFB is a perfectly reasonable western resort ski.  I skied last year's Pandora as my daily driver in the PNW, and did just fine.  It would probably also be fine for lift-accessed slackcountry and a little hiking, because it's so light.  But it is not an ideal backcountry ski for the reasons I detailed in my post above.

Of the skis you've mentioned, the MissBehaved is probably your best bet, as it has a more managable waist width and does have some tip and tail rocker, which is useful in dealing with variable snow conditions. 
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 › LINE Pandora vs K2 Missbehaved