2002 K2 Work Stinx

**D(C)** · 11-27-2006, 01:14 PM

At the shop I work at, there are a couple of pairs of Work Stinx from 2002 kicking around in the back, in 183 and 190 (http://www.couloirmag.com/mfgs/model...hp?modelID=49). They have an 88 waist and feel really, really soft. If mounted with regular alpine bindings, would they be any fun as an eastern rock/powder/tree ski? Are they too light and flimsy? How are they on the hard stuff?

I'm 5'8" 165 lbs and have a racing background. 183 or 190?

**Yeti** · 11-27-2006, 01:20 PM

I ski the yellow noodles in your neck of the woods with telemark bindings. Go long -- they're soft enough that you can always butter them into as short a radius as you need.

**D(C)** · 11-27-2006, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Yeti

I ski the yellow noodles in your neck of the woods with telemark bindings. Go long -- they're soft enough that you can always butter them into as short a radius as you need.

How is their edgehold?

**Will** · 11-27-2006, 02:13 PM

I have borrowed and skied the Work Stinx in an ugly yellow/red color, both times in a 190. For a total of about 6 days spread over about 3 years. All times were in fresh snow, either in resort where it was quickly getting cut up or in the BC in fresh north facing goodness that had not yet transformed. I'm 6'2" and 155lbs. I skied them with telemark bindings.

I hated them every goddamned time. Sluggish and slow at lower speeds, squirly and twitchy at high speeds, they get pushed around in crud and cut up pow, and just generally feel unstable. There must be some perfect middle ground for these skis, but I've never found it. Didn't spend much (or any) time on hardpack with them, but I'm sure they would suck there too.

I preferred skiing on 165cm Pocket Rockets over these. (Don't ask why I was skiing them, but I was) At least at moderate speeds the PR's were predictable, easy to ski, light and fun.

I would think that a heavier skier interested in making small, controlled turns in fresh snow would enjoy these. But in my opinion there are much better choices out there.

yep - this is one that I have skied

**Yeti** · 11-27-2006, 02:31 PM

Yes, we're talking about the same ski. I'm 5'8" 135 lbs. I have skied these skis for 3 years, in fresh backcountry snow, groomed resorts, and desperate hardpack. I tend to ski fast, and I'd like to think that I'm the opposite of "a heavier skier interested in making small, controlled turns in fresh snow".

I enjoy these skis. They are so soft that they often feel like they aren't there. I don't find them sluggish, though I agree that they (like any other soft foamcore I've tried) are twitchy at speed. They have bad edge hold, just a step up from "no edge hold". They aren't torsionally rigid enough to hold much of an edge if you're pushing them hard. Still, I find them very predictable and even forgiving -- in softer snows, you can ski their natural radius or stomp on them and make snappier turns. In the trees, they can be made to conform well to any variety of turn shapes. On landings, they are soft enough to be forgiving, though (especially with free heels) you'll want to keep your weight a bit back -- it is relatively easy to nosebutter-to-headstand.

**Schralper** · 11-27-2006, 06:14 PM

Mine are mounted w/ AT and they're stiffer than Pocket Rockets.
They're fine w/ my fat ass, 6'2" 225+, as long as I'm not goin to fast on firm.

**FigureEleven** · 11-27-2006, 06:52 PM

190cm for sure. This is the old AK Launcher mold and since it is soft, it skis pretty short. I had a lot of trouble ripping bindings out of these... but I was otherwise happy with them many years ago. This is an old ski from an even older mold... so I hope you are getting a killer deal.