How big should i get my PEs

billy092

billy092

Active member
Hey, im lookin for an allmountin ski that still does good in the park and wat ive heard about he pe`s it sounds like thats waht i want... im about 5"6 and 115lbs, i was thinkin the 169s because next year ill be bigger/taller...does this sounds right to you guys?
 
169 or 174... depending how you mount them, if you are mounting them at midsole (+0) then get 169

mounting them near or at core center get 174
 
wat do you mean mid core and center..., i guess if it helps i want a more of an all mountain feel, not just a park feel
 
well ur really light and the pe is real stiff, i am 160 and i could barely get them to flex, they were 174s u should get the 164s
 
^I'm 130lbs and rock the 179cm vicious no problem. You must ski like a pansy or something. As for the pubs, I've only skied them in a 174 and felt they were too soft. The vicious was soft, but they held up at speed and plowed through everything. Bottom line the PE is not a stiff ski for all mountain, maybe a tad stiff for park. This dude could handle 174s no problem if he mounts them forward a bit and knows how to ski, if he doesnt he can go 169cm
 
yeah, ive been skiin for a long time and i used to race so i can hold my own on the hill but this is my first year really getting into the park and actually doing stuff besides just hittin the jumps... right now i have mad heavy 170 GS:9 atomic race skis with platform bindings and crap buts really not wat i need, so 169 or 174 sounds good?
 
depends on your ability level... how old are you, if you are planning on growing another 2-3 inches and 20 lbs then 174 might be ok

Mid sole is referred to as +0... most skis are mapped out in thirds so this will net you 2/3s of the ski as tip and 1/3 as tail. Core center on pe's is apprx +7.5 I think and true center is +10.5 (someone correct me if Im wrong). These are the distances forward of midsole. If you want an all mtn feel I suggest the 169 mounted at +4 or so, pure park is usually +7.5-10.5

If you are a very agressive skier then 174 might be ok...
 
if you are a racer then you should know what a stiff ski feels like, the PE is not going to compare to a stiff slalom ski, it is lively but isn't going to deliver you THAT much power

If you like the 170 size and dont feel they are too big get the 174 and mount them at +5, the amount of tip will be similar to a 170, you will have more tail for more stable landings etc
 
i like the stiff race feel, being able to get the extra bite and power out of your turns but i like the smaller--scratch that, *lighter ski, its not gonna be the size as much because ive narrowed it down a little but the weight, which one is lighter, which one is stiffer
 
If you are a racer deffinately go bigger..174cm atleast. You will most likely want more stability than the 169 will give you. The Vicious is basically a PE on steriods. It does almost everything better with the exception of bumps and park. Look at my review on the Vicious.It may help you out a bit.
 
well I don't imagine the seth is much heavier than the PE and they certainly should be lighter than your race skis being they are missing the heavy race plate and bindings... both have a wood core so they are heavier than some other twins on the market... I dont have an opinion on the seth but the PE is a pretty good park and bump ski Ive found
 
i want the one thats stiffer but lighter, lighter being more important then stiff...i just dont want to get them and barely feel the difference (in wieght) between my race skis, cuz i need something way lighter
 
it sounds like the svs are more of a pow ski or for ppl goin bigger then me, im not gonna make myself sound good, im not throwin 9s or 7s, im just learning 3s and shit so i guess the 169 PEs sound right
 
just my opinion but if you are skiing in NY then you aren't going to use the svs to its full potential I think the PE is a rocken all mtn twin
 
I wont reccommend the vicious as an everday ski in NY. I will reccommend a PE 174cm mounted +5.Also try demoing most importantly. Demo different skis, different lengths, and see which you like the best.
 
its not the being able to handle it thats a factor, its the weight issue, cuz right now im using these tiny 150s for trying my threes (becuase my 170s are way to heavy, with platform and race binding), and to be honest it doesnt satisfy me cuz i kno they really small, so i alter in between my 170s when im just doin no spins and my 150s when im workin on my spins... but i dont wanna get the 169s and nto be able to do jack becuase theyre to heavy
 
i live in nowheresville ny and i ski a toggenburg, which is pretty sweet i guess, sometimes, but there are no demos
 
wow, that makes me sound lazy, im goin to gore and whiteface sometime so ill see what i can demo, thanks for all the help guys, really
 
most demo places are gonna have bindings mounted at mid sole, so if you like a 169 at mid sole I suggest a 174 at +5, if you like the 164 at mid sole, get the 169 at +4

what this will do is simulate the same size and give you more park performance without taking away from all mtn performance
 
oh and when u go to whiteface, let me know because if you have a boot 25.5-27.5 I think my bindings will adjust and you can check out the 179 PEs
 
you're completely 100% wrong. a gs ski is SUPPOSED to be way bigger than most because you need speed and larger radius carving turns. plus, both skis are used to completely different purposed, so they're no even comparible. in terms of grabs and spins, if you have skis that are too long, you're not going to dial the grabs, not going to slide rails as easily, etc etc. you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about..
 
If he mounted 174s at +5 there should be absolutely no problem spinning. Hell have 5cm more tail and 5cm less tip. Making it seem as though its a much shorter ski. If he goes with 164s next year, or possibly this year hes going to be unhappy especially with performance outside the park. Hes asking for an all mountain/ park ski. Youre seeming to miss the all mountain part. I'll stick to the bigger is better to a certain extent. Personally I'm 15lbs heaver and 1 inch taller and I'd go for 179s or bigger. I still havent bought into the short skis are better.
 
he might be better off starting out at the 169s... prolly could handle the 174 but he is quite small... you are too actually but its funny depeirre... my buddy who is about the same size as you or slightly taller and heavier sized himself for a 159 volkl dogen, I laughed, he loves them but I think hes a pussy, hes the same guy that told me 179 is too long and they are effortless spinners

go with 169 bro, you will be unhappy with 164, 169 mounted +4 will give you nice spinning and sick all mtn
 
viscious is much softer than the enemy and umay actually be able to butter on them, on the p.e.s u will hardly be able to flex them, i weigh 160 and when i grab the tips the tails dont even come off the snow 5 inches
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top