Anyone have feedback on the Line Pandora?

[Kate]

I've been looking at the Pandoras online but have not been able to find any to check out in person. Has anyone spent some time on these that can tell me what the flex is like? I'm 5'8", 140lbs, and looking for a fatter ski. I was going to steer away from women's skis since they tend to be softer than what I want, but the Pandora's dimensions look pretty nice. Does anyone know how it would line up to a Gotama/KiKu in terms of stiffness? I'm also looking at the 4Frnt EHP if you've got any feedback on that.

[UTpowder]

My daughter was looking into these. Hand flexing them in the shop they feel very soft. Much softer then the Gotama. They even seemed softer then my Sanouks but with a little less "pop" to them. They could be a lot of fun in the deep. The topsheet felt very thin and looked like it would chip very easy if that matters to you.

[critical-motion]

Wife skis 176cm 1st generation Gotamas and is about your height. They are a little burly for her, but she still likes them. I think that the current model is lighter and easier to ski. Most "womens" skis are not designed for good skiers and are simply a pretty/cute/girly tophsheet on a super light and soft core and are created to boost sales. Seems like most of the ripping skier women on this board ski "mens" skis.

[Sparwood Dave]

Wife skis 176cm 1st generation Gotamas and is about your height. They are a little burly for her, but she still likes them. I think that the current model is lighter and easier to ski. Most "womens" skis are not designed for good skiers and are simply a pretty/cute/girly tophsheet on a super light and soft core and are created to boost sales. Seems like most of the ripping skier women on this board ski "mens" skis.

Have to agree. My wife is 5'5" and 110 lbs, is definitely a 'ripper'. She's retiring her Phat Luvs (too flappy) and going for Prophet 100s which are just a little stiffer than Gotamas. BTW she's going for 179s but she likes her skis loooong.

[SummerSucks77]

When you think about the pandora think softer Elizabeth. My girlfriend, she is almost exactly your size, just picked up a pair in 171cm based on the idea that she really enjoyed the Elizabeth but liked the top sheet on the pandora better. She isn't the most aggressive skier in the world, so it may not be what you are looking for. The gotama/ kiku would probably be more what you are looking for and if you are looking for a beefier ski I would look at the Czar as well, they come in a 174 and have similar girth underfoot and a pretty good amount of rocker.

[njfreeskier]

Kate, the pandora is pretty much identical to the Line Elizabeth, with a slightly softer flex. It is a pow specific ski for sure. It is very fat and very soft. I'd say 35% softer(give or take) than the gotama, and even more compared to the ehp. If you are looking for a ski to charge with, this is not the ski for you. On the other hand if you are looking for a floaty, pow specific ski, the pandora wins hand down over any other ski you've mentioned. If you are looking for something comparable to the kiku or gotama, look at the celebrity from line. its a killer ski, and has a great flex to it. Its around 90 underfoot though.

[skibunnie2]

I just got my pandoras. Haven't skied on them yet though. I wouldnt' call them stiff but I won't call them super soft either. soooooo excited to ride them! I'll let you know when I do.

picked them because I wanted a 170 or so fat ski. and most guys skis don't come that short so I didn't have much choice. have been happy with line skis in the past. had the celebrities a couple of years ago which were really fun (until they broke...) but now that they are being made in the k2 factory lines seem to be holding up a lot better. and if not their warranty is great. plus they are soooo pretty. thought about the moment pikas, which sound super sick too but I really couldn't handle the graphics.

[Check_in]

Hi All,

Just come back from shop.
Has anyone mentioned that 162 and 172 are absolutely different ski.

172 as described has same shape as Elizabeth and similar stiffness, while 162 has shape closer to Sir Francis (with early taper) . Moreover it is 3-4 mm wider that 172 and much more stiffer.

Any ideas?

[art2d2]

There's been a number of good women skiers saying the Bro 174s rock it pretty hard. Stiff, but easy to ski with a 100 or so waist. Ask Clarnitty, she rocks them hard.

[imatt]

follow link and click on specs. the 162 is the same mold as the sfb. i just took a pair of 162's out of the box so we could wrap them for moma. they have a very pronounced early taper. they look look super cool! http://www.lineskis.com/product/pandora

[Neurodoc]

Hi All,

Just come back from shop.
Has anyone mentioned that 162 and 172 are absolutely different ski.

172 as described has same shape as Elizabeth and similar stiffness, while 162 has shape closer to Sir Francis (with early taper) . Moreover it is 3-4 mm wider that 172 and much more stiffer.

Any ideas?

I just went out and fondled my new 162s which are languishing in the garage (come on Ullr!). The dimensions say 139 - 110 - 137, just like the 172. They feel pretty flexible.

Either they've got it wrong on the website, or they're tweaking the design midseason, I don't know.

I demoed a pair last spring, and thought they were pretty springy and flexy. But fun. Lots of fun. The Phat Luv, which I demoed the same day, seemed like a stiff, damp plank by comparison.

[skibumnh]

Hi All,

Just come back from shop.
Has anyone mentioned that 162 and 172 are absolutely different ski.

172 as described has same shape as Elizabeth and similar stiffness, while 162 has shape closer to Sir Francis (with early taper) . Moreover it is 3-4 mm wider that 172 and much more stiffer.

Any ideas?

Wow, good point, they all seem to sweep that under the rug...

[solskier]

Hi All,

Just come back from shop.
Has anyone mentioned that 162 and 172 are absolutely different ski.

172 as described has same shape as Elizabeth and similar stiffness, while 162 has shape closer to Sir Francis (with early taper) . Moreover it is 3-4 mm wider that 172 and much more stiffer.

Any ideas?

I was standing in a local shop flexing and perplexing why the Pandora was stiffer then the Elizabeth and smelled of Bacon. I then noticed that the shapes were different between to Elizabeth and the Pandora. None of the shops in town have had the 172 to look at, but this clears everything up. Thanks for having a keen eye.

[Check_in]

[QUOTE=skibumnh;2145128]Wow, good point, they all seem to sweep that under the rug...

I've told with Line folks a week ago, and they say that it was a misunderstanding between marketing and production. Now it is fixed as you see, at least on the web

[Shanghai Noon]

I have the Pandora in 172. This is very much a powder specific ski. If you are looking for a fatter ski to use as your everyday, I would encourage you to look elsewhere. That said, this ski is excellent in the powder. Turn initiation is quick and easy and they are a very nimble energetic ski in the powder. They are also very nice in the trees. They turn quickly and on these, I find myself skiing much more aggressively through tight glades. On groomers, once you get them on edge, they grab on, but the softness, especially in the tips gives these a speed limit with quite a bit of chatter at a relatively moderate speed.

I also have the Celebrity in a 165 as my all mountain ski. Now that's a ripping ski at speed with a lot of versatility in terms of turn size. But as was mentioned below, this is only 90 underfoot.

[jesski]

..but when I demoed these in crud they seemed to just catch more air than the heavier volkls I typically ski. I dunno if the softer flex is necessarily problematic.

Anyone used this ski for AT? If you would/ would not recommend for backcountry travel, why?

I'm 5'3", 128#

I bought while on sale at REI in April, had second thoughts and returned them, and am now wishing I kept them...

[2nd mate]

My wife has them in a 172 mounted with with NX22's and had done some light touring on them. Her other touring setup is a PR/1080 GUN with NX11 and she found the Pandora very light and easy on the uphill. She does however prefer the older setup unless its an all pow day with no chance of variable snow and or hardpack. She found it difficult to turn the ski(Pandora) over on the downhill even with the rise from the naxo binders. I still tell her she will get used to it eventually but she is very tentative to ski them in mixed or variable conditions. Nearly all her time on the Pandoras has been in the trees/BC at Jay.

[jesski]

2nd- Thanks for the tip. That's sort of what I was afraid of...

[3pin]

FYI... for Fall 09, both the 165 and 172cm Pandora will have the Francis Bacon shape (tip and tail taper, 115mm waist), along with tip rocker. Sweet looking pow ski for women.

[2nd mate]

FYI... for Fall 09, both the 165 and 172cm Pandora will have the Francis Bacon shape (tip and tail taper, 115mm waist), along with tip rocker. Sweet looking pow ski for women.

I would say to anyone...hold off for the new funshape. I wish I had done so.

[Buzzworthy]

I also have the Celebrity in a 165 as my all mountain ski. Now that's a ripping ski at speed with a lot of versatility in terms of turn size.

My wife is on these too and absolutely LOVES them.