PDA

View Full Version : Park skis for All moutnain chicks


laseranimal
10-12-2003, 07:14 PM
what say the maggots? I remember way back Roo was saying that the missus steped it up with a pair of 1080's. Since most of the park skis have softer flexes and wider waists then all the normal womens all mountains(obviously ski companies belive no women should be on anything between 71 and 90)

My wife isn't skiing this year(having a kid and all :rolleyes: ) but next year i'm thinking about putting her on a new pair of all mountains. Right now she's on a pair of Volkl V1 20/20's which work fine until it gets rough.

I'm thinking something a little longer/wider will help her out in powder and crud conditions so I'm looking for something in a 75-85 waist in like a 165-170 any suggestions?
DINMS
10-12-2003, 10:37 PM
Why are people still restricted by a skis waist?
Bandit Man
10-12-2003, 11:16 PM
She could do the 1080's but they absolutely blow on anything hard (no pun intended). Also, they are known as a decent pow ski in less than a foot, but they get knocked around in crud. I've been on the 181 spaceframe version for the last year as my park ski. For the aforementioned reasons, I don't ski them outside the park.
The Jackamo
10-12-2003, 11:44 PM
169 PE's... those are all i can really think of; all i know is they rule in crud and have good float in pow
laseranimal
10-13-2003, 04:37 AM
not worried about over a foot of pow I was playing around with a pair of 165 Explosives that I got from a friend who out grew them as a tight tree stick, but now that I have G4s/Normal sized Explosives for me they've been donated to the wife. I'm looking for a ski thats going to be good in the chopped up freeze thawed ice over there mound of snow over here east coast crud
bad_roo
10-13-2003, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by DINMS
Why are people still restricted by a skis waist?

Mrs Roo just got a pair of Nordica W105s. :D
BakerBoy
10-13-2003, 05:57 AM
Volkl V-Pro...
Tical
10-14-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by BakerBoy
Volkl V-Pro...

Totally agree.. or if not go for the PE's..
britney
10-14-2003, 12:28 PM
i guess the PR and the scratch BC have too thick a waist (90), or arent "park" enough?? i just bought the BC in a 176 and i'll let you know how it goes! i am coming from all-mtn, trying to get more tricksy, so maybe i'm the opposite of your wife (going from park to more all-mtn)?? how big is she? 160's sounds short for all-mtn to me.

i also considered the Volkl 7 24 AX4 at (118/83/106), but not sure if they're true twins. also, i think the shortest is like a 178. my ideal ski was the eric pollard pro model (118/86/111), too bad it only comes in a 186! :(

but if i were you, i'd wait for the K2 mid-year release of the pep pro model (possible holiday gift for your bride?) - i'm kinda wishing i had waited...

(there's probably multiple threads on the much-anticipated pep model, but i recall one in particular either here or at powmag started by bossass. its expected to be fat twin (mais bien sur) smaller and more "park" than the seths, but def intended for all mtn).

-brit
Arty50
10-14-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by britney
i also considered the Volkl 7 24 AX4 at (118/83/106), but not sure if they're true twins. also, i think the shortest is like a 178.

The AX4 only has a partially upturned tail. The V-Pro is the true twin. It has the same dimensions as AX4/G4, and is a touch softer.
DINMS
10-14-2003, 02:46 PM
The Pollard is not a 186. It may SAY 186. But it feels like a 175
Bandit Man
10-14-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Arty50
[V-Pro] has the same dimensions as AX4/G4, and is a touch softer.

...except the Pro has a 113-mm tip, not 118. Probably not worth pointing out in the scheme of things though.
Arty50
10-14-2003, 03:05 PM
Ooops, yeah. Thanks for the correction.