Halp!

ThaLorax

ThaLorax

Active member
I'm a very short person standing at a massive 5'2" and 110 pounds. But that's not what I need help with. Finding pow skis is what I need help with. So far I've narrowed it down to the K2 Seths (169) and the Line Elizabeths (172). I normally ride a 160 but I figure that since they're for powder that they'll be easier to push around at the longer length. Will these be "too much" of a ski for me? Am I doomed to ride "skinny" skis forever? Any other brands/skis I should be looking at?
 
i wouldnt go that big, im 5ft 6 and i ride 171's , seths would be nice..but i dunno about the length
 
Assuming you're a very aggressive skier, those still might be too big. I'm 5'11 and I just bough 185 Scratch BCs, but so you might want a tad shorter. Definitely no longer than 170. But yeah
 
The problem is, nobody makes powder skis any smaller than 169 (the seths). I already got a pair of Karmas, so I don't need those Anthems. Thanks though.
 
i would say for someone so like u dont need that wide a platform. probly like the volkl bridge would be solid
 
chill. I just narrowed it down to those two after talking to some people as of what to get. I guess I'm really just trying to ask NS to hep me make a decision between the two.
 
get the lizzies and just mount em dead center so they will ski shorter. ur so small they probably still wont dive to much
 
would that make them harder to turn in the powder (for someone my size) or would it just be a learning curve. I've never had the opportunity to ride fat skis.
 
you'l hate center mount in steep terrain on lizzies, to much tail, for your size i would just get the 159 nancys, yeah i know its a girls ski but for your height and weight it would be perfect, k2's bomber bases, it has the rythm core so the swing weight is so lite you can still spinto win, and its the same footprint as the 1st and 2nd gen seth, just a lil softer,which again your weight is an isue 2nd gen seth is one of my favortie all mountain skis, my friend sara has the 169's shes 130 and 5'3 and rips them to shreds, i tried um last year just for fun i weigh 145 and am 6 ft and can butter them like nothin and we're dope in the park.
 
Now that I think about it, will the Nancy's (or Seths) really be that different from my Karmas or are the cuts enough of a diference to make a noticable improvement. Sorry for all the questions. I just don't really know anything about big mountain skis.
 
Get the Elizabeths...the 169 Seth is longer than it sounds because K2 measures running surface, it's actually more like 174-ish.
The lizzies would be good, and because of the short turn radius, 15.5m, you won't need to muscle them around, just put 'em on edge and they'll go where you want.
 
Alright, looks like the more people I talk to, the more this points towards the lizzies. I'll have to demo both anyways.
 
rossi brigades in a 171 would be realllyyyy nice. or salomon guns (the pocket rocket version) in a 165 would be good to.
 
i just realized, do fat skis make it hard to ski technical really steep sections if you actualy want to make turns on them or am i just asking too many questions now?
 
no, it's not harder. but that length is fine for your height in pow. people traditionally shred bigger sticks in pow, it works out fine. just don't mount center, or else you always have to ride backseat and it sucks.
 
So I ended up with the Salomon Guns in 164 with Salomon Z10 Ti binding. So amped to get them after demoing them. Thanks y'allz for the "halp".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top