Elizibeths

S

SkiBM680

Member
I was looking at the elizibeths but they only come in 174 and i ride a 179 fuji for park and the Ebiths would be for bc. Will this be to small or was it designed to fit that way, eric pollard ways like 20 more ilbs then i do
 
They're a park ski first and foremost. So yes, they'll be too short, unless you're much smaller than Pollard.
 
are they really jsut for park cuase it kind of looked to me like they were for made to be a ski that u would use as a powder/ bc jump type ski. not like ak style powder but one that would be good for glades and stuff.
 
^ i am 6ft and way like 155 if that helps and i live on the east coast so it would mainly be for eastern glades and then my 2 trips out west a year
 
One. This one.

Fat skis in the park are the next big thing. Except they're already here.
 
Elizabeths are not what you're looking for. 182 Moships are closer if you want Lines.
 
It seems like you know what your talking about man but on lines website it is listed as a powder freestyle ski. Just thought id through that out there
 
Will it work in pow? Yes. Is it made for that? No. The sidecut alone should tell you that much. It'll float, but at your size it won't be at all ideal. It'd be a great all around freestyle ski for someone smaller. If you're really set on these things I highly suggest you demo it first because it's not exactly a typical ski. I'm willing to bet the way they ski will surprise you. If you want a BC specific ski I seriously suggest you go another route.
 
have you read anything about this ski. nothing about it is for park specificly. the ski is made for powder. thats why its under the powder section of skis on lines website. also if you watch the video you never ever see it in the park.

if you had done even the slightest amount of research it would be obvious that it's not made for park
 
I'm going to have to side with JD on this one. I have a set and it will be my fooling around/park ski. I know what Line has it under in thier website. The videos you speak of show Eric using prototype skis not even the Lizzie. (I could be wrong on this one... any help?)

Will it perform in the pow/backcountry? Yes

Are there other Line skis better suited for all mountain pow? Yes

My 2 cents... happens to be the same as JD'S 2 pennies
 
^^^ one more thing I forgot. Are there skis from Line better suited for pure park? Yes

This ski is hard to classify.
 
^^ it seems to me like they are tryin to make it so all skis are like this, the new sidecut and super wide for park not jsut pow, and ther jsut seeing if people like the idea.
 
And if you knew anything about the entire POINT of this ski's production you'd know I'm right. It was, literally, made to be a park ski throughout the design process. It's just a totally different concept / way of doing that, and as a result it ends up that the flex pattern and waist make it workable anywhere. And because it's 110 a lot of people seem to lose track of what it was made for. But the basic design concept is park oriented, don't forget it. And I don't care where it sits on a fucking website, I care what it does on the hill. I only have the opinions of a bunch of people who have ridden them, but as an all mountain ski, they seem to work considerably better for small people, and are really not what someone who's 6 foot should be looking for in a BC specific ski. Even if he wanted a ski to do park AND pow in, they'd be pretty borderline at his size. BC only? No. Big fucking no. Moships. Chronic Wides. Prophet 100s. Not Elizabeths.

By the way, if YOU knew anything about pow skis, you'd know that a pronounced sidecut is baaaaaad. As in not a good thing. Line knows that, too. If they'd wanted to gear the ski towards pow they wouldn't have made it that way. It's necessary for what it's supposed to, and doesn't make it unmanageable as a pow ski, do but definitely is not conducive to its use in deep snow.
 
go jump off a bridge. you dont know what your talking about and ur trying to shoot people down. If your going to attack someone at least make sure your right.
 
what was i wrong about? it is under the powder section of skis in lines website and you never see it in the park on the video. in the movie pollard talks about the symetrical flex pattern and how you can pop in and out of the POWDER. its supposed to ride like a snowboard, therefore its going to be shorter and wider.
 
i say get them because they look like FUN. who cares about their mysterious catagorizing. they are supposed to ride like a snowboard. sounds very revolutionary and like even more fun. if you want elizabeths, get them. get the skis YOU want. people say they are wrong for you? well they arent the ones riding them.
 
admit your wrong. When Pollard was here its all he used in the park so i've seen it used plently in park. Its under powder in lines site as it fits nowhere else. theres no BC booters/park section is there?
 
ya thats what i was getting at. but when people say that it's a park ski it makes me think that they mean it was made to be in the park only and since its made for bc booters it can be taken into the park.
 
How about this, it is an everything ski, it is made for nither. It was developped by pollard to ride EVERYTHING. It was made to ride everything because Eric P rides everything. And don't tell me it is a park ski, cause pollard is not a huge park rider. This man is a BC king, and this ski was designed to do it all. Nothing specific.
 
isnt that what I said before ? Also tones of people ski seth vicuas in the park but it is not a park ski. just throwing that out there
 
for sure man, any ski is made for anything, your the one who is gonna use them for that.
 
how fucking dumb are you people.... pollard doesn't ride elizabeths all mountain. he rides prophets all mountain. he didnt rock his pro model in pow much last year, either. that doesnt mean they dont work in soft snow but its still the case. liz's are his park ski and thats what he made them to do... big stable platform for landings, but still with sidecut. if you want to ski them in pow, go ahead but it doesnt change what they were made for.. this cant get any clearer, elizabeth = pollards park ski, prophet = pollards pow ski. its like youre all too dense to get around the fact that its fat so omglol it MUST be a pow ski. retarded.

if you cant understand why sidecut makes a ski worse in pow, can you at least notice that the prophet 130 has no sidecut? if line wanted to make their best pow ski have no sidecut, why would they make another one with the exact opposite design for the same fucking thing.

god. kids on this site are so fucking stupid.
 
well you are one of them, like i said the ski is an EVERYTHING ski, not just park....you fucking moron. The sidecut indicates that it is made to go through crud, park, groomers, everything. Plus that waist is FAT, and i mean really FAT. Not like seth pistols fat, like Maiden fat. There is no denying that this has a HUGE amount of flotation.
 
I love how atleast 4 difrent poeple have com into this thread like they were eric pollard and designed the ski themselves thinking they know it all when actually by the 8th or so post we had determind that it was not erics powder ski and that it was more of an all mtn, bc booter, park ski and that line was interduceing teh concept of haveing not only powder skis be fat but all skis
 
i've been riding the skis since march. they can do everything except 2 switchups on a 10 foot rail. if you want to do that, don't get them.

like JD said, they're a better all mountain ski if you're a small guy. i'm 5'4" 125 pounds. they're really sick everywhere for me, including the park. i stopped using my other park skis around april. they're good for powder too. the sidecut doesn't make them BAD, it just favors a bit more turning, ollie-ing out of powder pillows type of style rather than straightlining.
 
Pollard like doesn't ride Elizabeths or Prophets lol. I am pretty sure of it. All the skis he rides are made specifically for him. That aside, these are a park ski. As important as width is in powder, length is even more important when it comes to skis. Not pow skis.
 
I may be wrong and im too lazy to read through this whole thread again, but didnt you say that you're an east coast skier? Why would you need a powder specific ski on the east coast?
 
Becuase when you ski over 60 dayss a year east coast and spend a good portion of that time hikeing stuff like mt mansfield, skiing glades, and the backside of jay and spend 14 days a year outwest you want one. Also when you work at a ski shop you can afford one. Is that a good enough awnser
 
Okay so answer this. Everybody says it wasn't really intended for pow skiing and its more for park. And it rides a lot like a snowboard. So why is it a dumb reason to get one for the east coast. If its made more for park and it rides like a snowboard, why not for the east??? That's like saying, its dumb to ride a snowboard in the east coast. I'm not saying that the elizabeth is exactly same as the snowboard, but if it rides a lot like a snowboard, why not??? I'm in the east and I'll be making several trips out to west and I just bought a pair and I don't think was a dumb choice. I also demoed them out in colorado in groomed area and it was fine to me.

I would understand if you say its dumb for someone who will be doing moguls buy elizabeths, but i don't think its dumb to buy park intended ski for the east coast.
 
^ Thething is is that this will be just my pow ski i laready have park ski and it seems like that is your all around ski so I am looking for something that is made for powder
 
I like line as a company a little more but those are a possibility to. They jsur have to be a ski i can profourm from my shop
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top