New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Too Much Ski?

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
I'm a 5'2, 114lb female rider.  I usually ride 159 K2 Missbehaved which I really love.  This week however, we had a major dumpage of snow, so I've been riding a pair of 169 K2 Hellbents with the Marker Schizo bindings.  I first rode them +3 from the K2 recommended factory mount.  Floated unbelievably, but I found them tough to turn.  We moved the bindings forward to +6 (which seems close to a center mount ?).  They skied much shorter and were much easier to take the bumpy chopped up powder, turn on the groomers and still floated really well.  They also turn really well in the trees...much better than I usually am in them.  My first runs are unbelievable.  I can keep up with my crazy snowboarding husband...but then I get really worked 1/2 way through the day.  We're doing 15-19K of vert in the powder (with some of it not really that steep).  These are monsters underfoot at 122.  I'd love to add more of a powder/soft snow ski to the quiver and I really like the "full rocker" for the powder as opposed to the early tip and tail with camber underfoot (don't get me wrong, that has it's place on most days than not).  Just wondering if there are any other options out there with the full rocker that might take a little less to muscle around.  Seems there are alot of tip and tail rocker options out there (which I already have and like).  Or maybe I should just hit the gym and get stronger to move those monsters around?  Ideas?
post #2 of 27
Without a debate on how fat a fat ski should be, is there a reason that you felt the Missbehaveds weren't enough ski for you?

From a personal preference standpoint, and the small amount of experience I have in powder, (maybe 10+/- days in my life) I can't imagine wanting or needing a ski wider than the Gotama's I skied at Big Sky last year (105mm under foot)

My stats for point of reference 5'6" 130 lbs.

Are the K2 Hellbents too much ski for you.....I think so, heck, I think they'd be too much ski for me and I'm a bit bigger than you are.

I think the only way to be sure is for you and me to meet up and ski powder together. 
post #3 of 27
It sounds to me like you should be riding a Snowboard.
post #4 of 27
I have a friend who skis the Roxy version of the Rossi S7 in a 176cm length, she is 5'1" and no more than 105lbs... but, she was also captain of the UVM ski team and now lives in Park City, so she might be an 'outlier' and therefor not a good comparison.

I'd suggest looking at the Rossi BC 110 166cm, in my opinion it is a better design than the hellbent for most skiers, it will be less cumbersome for sure.
post #5 of 27
Thread Starter 
It's not so much that the Missbehaved aren't enough ski, it's just a bit different riding those full reverse camber skis and I skied through the trees the best I have.  The float is amazing, but when I'm cooked, then it's just hell on skis and I'm left limping back down to the lodge and throwing one of these....

The Hellbents are really wide...in fact they probably take up more real estate than my snowboard!   I'm not sure it's the length so much as the sheer girth of these fatties and not having enough strength right now to turn them when I'm tired.  Or maybe my powder skiing technique isn't what it should be.  I've made alot of improvements this year but it just might not be what it needs to be to ski these a whole day.

Rossi BC 110 could be something for me to look at as well.
post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnbikegirl View Post

It's not so much that the Missbehaved aren't enough ski, it's just a bit different riding those full reverse camber skis and I skied through the trees the best I have.  The float is amazing, but when I'm cooked, then it's just hell on skis and I'm left limping back down to the lodge and throwing one of these....

The Hellbents are really wide...in fact they probably take up more real estate than my snowboard!   I'm not sure it's the length so much as the sheer girth of these fatties and not having enough strength right now to turn them when I'm tired.  Or maybe my powder skiing technique isn't what it should be.  I've made alot of improvements this year but it just might not be what it needs to be to ski these a whole day.

Rossi BC 110 could be something for me to look at as well.

 
The Hellbents are pretty big skis. My husband has the 179s, and I have the 176 S7s -- they sound similar, but the HBs are much bigger, and heavier. My husband also outweighs me by about 60 lb. I can't imagine skiing the HBs, but my S7s feel almost too short.

That isn't very scientific, but I can agree that maybe you should a more nimble type of ski. Try that BC 110! (same as my S7, but cuter graphics)
post #7 of 27
It sounds like you like the HBs. You didn't say anything bad about them and have the mounting position dialed in. Get them and now you can mount a fixed position binding in the right spot and know that you are going to enjoy position.

Too much ski for the skier is not only affected by height and weight. Skier ability is a major factor. Go with your gut, which I heard saying hell bent, hell bent, hell bent.
post #8 of 27
 although I think the Hellbent is a pussy cat and youll get use to it. whiteroom is right that the narrow and more nimble BC110 might be a better choice in a 166.
post #9 of 27

Maybe you guys all missed the "full rocker" part. If you like the Bent's, then stick with them.

post #10 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnbikegirl View Post

  My first runs are unbelievable... but then I get really worked 1/2 way through the day. 
 
I'm guessing you missed this...

The term "rocker" is really hard to pin down. 'Full Rocker' could mean aggressive tip and tail splay, it could mean full reverse camber... it could mean Sammy Hagar skis them. Sounds to me she would like to have a really fun 'powder specific' ski that she can enjoy all day on a powder day, sounds like a 169cm Hellbent is not 'it'.
post #11 of 27
Thread Starter 
In the Hellbents case, there is no camber under foot.  It's basically flat and I think that allowed me to turn nicely in the trees but I think the girth of the ski caused me to work the legs so much that by the end of the day I could not turn them anymore.  Fun when you're fresh...but by the end of the day, the Bents have bent me in two.  As I stated earlier, perhaps my powder technique isn't quite up to snuff.  When I started skiing my other skis, I tended to let them do the work for me.  Worked on certain terrain, but found that I ran into trouble on different terrain.  I think I may be doing the same on these.

The BC 110's aren't available in town right now to try.  Might have to wait until next year to demo...the shops appear to have sold alot of their fleets aready this year (and one shop in town didn't even have demos this year...damn economy).
Edited by mtnbikegirl - 4/4/10 at 7:55pm
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post



I'm guessing you missed this...

The term "rocker" is really hard to pin down. 'Full Rocker' could mean aggressive tip and tail splay, it could mean full reverse camber... it could mean Sammy Hagar skis them. Sounds to me she would like to have a really fun 'powder specific' ski that she can enjoy all day on a powder day, sounds like a 169cm Hellbent is not 'it'.
 
A ski with camber under foot is not a full rocker. I ski Blog's. they have camber underfoot, and aggressive tip and tail rocker. Bit they are not full rocker.
post #13 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post



A ski with camber under foot is not a full rocker. I ski Blog's. they have camber underfoot, and aggressive tip and tail rocker. Bit they are not full rocker.

 


My K2 Missbehaved also have the tip/tail rocker with camber underfoot.  I find these function unbelievably as a  all-mountain multi-condition ski but they ski different from the "fully rockered" Hellbents. 
post #14 of 27
A few thoughts....

If you are contemplating keeping the Hell Bents: As I said in the other thread, consider remounting so you can park your boot center at +7.5 (at your size, maybe leave the option of +8 or 8.5 open). In one sense, the Hell Bent is "a lot of ski" in any size. It has great big huge tips way out on the end. The fact that is is rockered does not negate this simple fact. But getting on or near  core center makes the ski a ton more nimble. It is almost criminal that K2 even put the marks from zero to +5 on the ski. Without getting into a long discussion, that entire range is a waste of time for anyone who wants to use the ski the way it was intended to be skied.

Grab some ski porn with Sean Pettit, Andy Mahre. Pep Fujas, etc. Watch their stance an how they use the ski... Pay attention their edges/angles - both in powder &  when you can see them on firmer snow as well.

If you have not used a fatter rockered ski before, adjusting the mount point & just playing with it for a few days may get things more in the groove for you. As BWPA noted, it is kind of a "pussycat" once you get the hang of it. It is super versatile & super forgiving. But it is a bunch of ski in terms of mass & how it is distributed.

If you are seriously considering other skis: You are not exactly a big person. And the "good" choices are a bit limited. Especially if you are interested in a "fully rockered" or reverse camber ski.

However, a few things that come to mind (I'm sure I'm missing one or two others too)...

The Pontoon is actually "easier" to ski in powder than the Hell Bent. It is a bit more of a "one trick pony", but it sure does that trick well. Ignore what anyone says about it being fatter than the Hell Bent or it being too fat. There are few skis as easy to turn & manage in any kind of soft snow as the Pontoon. And it comes in a 169 - which is actually several cm shorter than the "169" Hell Bent. If you go that way, consider mounting at maybe +2 from the mark (or throw a Griffon Schizo or Griffon demo track on).

The Praxis Powder Board is another incredible soft snow ski. It'd be one of those "few" mentioned just above. The 175 Powder Board is almost exactly the same length as a 169 Hell Bent. However, its mass is more under foot. It is incredibly nimble & IMO skis much "lighter" than a similarly sized HB. It is just an insane powder (and slush, and windbuff...) ski.

IMO, once you get used to them, skis like Praxis PBs and Pontoons are far easier to manage on groomers than popular mythology would have you believe. Both make excellent resort powder/slush skis.

Another contender for someone as light as you are might be the full reverse camber Kiku. However, it is arguably more of a fattish all-mountain design. And, as others have noted, the S7 family, despite having some camber, is feeling much love these days.
post #15 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post



I'm guessing you missed this...

The term "rocker" is really hard to pin down. 'Full Rocker' could mean aggressive tip and tail splay, it could mean full reverse camber... it could mean Sammy Hagar skis them. Sounds to me she would like to have a really fun 'powder specific' ski that she can enjoy all day on a powder day, sounds like a 169cm Hellbent is not 'it'.

 

I would love a 2nd ski (not that I really need it...just want it ) that is more powder specific and more rockered than what I currently own (which has tip/tail rocker with camber).   I hopped back on my 159 K2 Missbehaveds today and they seemed super long but really easy to turn at 98 underfoot on the groomers.  The "full rocker" I've been riding is really flat under foot and massive tip/tail rocker.  The float is unlike any other ski I've been on usually considered appropriate for my size and I've tried several other "powder skis" for women.

The Voodoo BC 110's sound like something I would like to try but if only I could get my hands on them to demo.  I might also try a larger Missbehaved next year...supposed to have even more rocker than my current version. 
post #16 of 27
 I heard there is a women's Katana next year too. Not sure what sizes, but surely shorter than the 176 they offer now.
post #17 of 27

You might want to scope out the Volkl Kiku. It's the women's Gotama, it has a lot less "bananna" shape than the hellbent and is smaller and lighter as well. Sounds like it might fit the bill.

post #18 of 27
If you weigh 114 lbs and want a powder/tree slayer that won't leave you tired by afternoon - you want the Rossi S3.  Tip and tail rocker means it skis short on the groomed, but feels more substantial in soft snow.  The narrower waist width and  shovel means it will feel more precise and be less tiring to maneuver all day long. 

Note that the S3 does not have quite the loose, slarvy feeling of a Pontoon in deep powder.  But it turns on a dime in tight trees and the tips are pretty much non-diveable.

I believe the BC110 is modeled more on the S7 in larger sizes, on the S3 in the smaller. 

I am waiting for someone to make my ideal powder ski: full reverse camber, early taper in the tip, conventional sidecut, and pintail.  Basically an S7 without the camber underfoot.  Or a Praxis Powder with a little sidecut carved out.
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

 I heard there is a women's Katana next year too. Not sure what sizes, but surely shorter than the 176 they offer now.

Kenja, it looks pretty sweet!
post #20 of 27
Buy Treckchick's 2009 Kikus and be happy.  The 2009 is a traditional ski at 105mm under foot.  They are extremely well behaved and ski almost anything thrown at them.
post #21 of 27
 Don't buy the Katana.  It won't butter turns like the 'bent.  

DPS is making the 112RP in a 168 next year...  Last time I checked, the hybrids were $679 on the preorder deal, I'd get on that if you can afford them...  From what you've written you seem to be pretty darn athletic and driven as a skier, I don't think they would be unrealistic to recommend for you to check out.  It's going to be a tad bit less floaty than the hellbents but it will be far more maneuverable.     

http://www.dpsskis.com/ski/wailer112RP


post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio View Post

Buy Treckchick's 2009 Kikus and be happy.  The 2009 is a traditional ski at 105mm under foot.  They are extremely well behaved and ski almost anything thrown at them.

I don't want to push my own stuff, but Rio's right,
If I lived where I skied powder more, I'd keep these, but they're not getting the love they deserve in Michigan. 

FS: 09 Volk Kiku 168cm
post #23 of 27
Regarding 2009 Kikus

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but 1) the OP has said they are only interested in a fully rockered ski; and 2) any traditionally cambered ski - which includes the 2009 Kiku - is teh suck in powder compared with a rockered ski like the models generally being discussed, especially if priorities include easy turning in tight places...

Not knocking the ski, but it is miles from that the OP is asking for. 
post #24 of 27
FS: Cheap: quiver of former powder skis: Elan M1111, Atomic PP, K2 Big Kahuna, Voile Tele-Surf, Volant Chubb. I can't use them for powder anymore as they have been obsoleted by rockered skis. Must get trendy skis to replace them.





 I'm not suggesting that rockered skis are all hype, but come on. Trad camber skis still work quite well. I am looking for a Spatula for my collection. I want to ride the original rocker. But at $300 flat (avg. price on eBay), they are too much just for collectings sake.
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Work View Post

 Don't buy the Katana.  It won't butter turns like the 'bent.  

DPS is making the 112RP in a 168 next year...  Last time I checked, the hybrids were $679 on the preorder deal, I'd get on that if you can afford them...  From what you've written you seem to be pretty darn athletic and driven as a skier, I don't think they would be unrealistic to recommend for you to check out.  It's going to be a tad bit less floaty than the hellbents but it will be far more maneuverable.     

http://www.dpsskis.com/ski/wailer112RP



worlds of difference between the new Katana and the old one really.
post #26 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrophobia View Post



I am waiting for someone to make my ideal powder ski: full reverse camber, early taper in the tip, conventional sidecut, and pintail.  Basically an S7 without the camber underfoot.  Or a Praxis Powder with a little sidecut carved out.
 
This is basically what I want.  A powder-slayer 110-115 underfoot that is super nimble in the trees. 
post #27 of 27
169 Bent sounds fine from what you said. I have the 189 and when you stand it up, it is a beast of a ski (~195 tip to tail). Mine are a foot over my head. The running length is tiny so it all comes down to whether you are strong enough to move a big ski around in tight spots, which is sounds like you are.

There is no point in skiing a super rockered ski which is short.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion