MR. POLLARD'S OPUS for park ?
- Thread starter K_JIBS
- Start date
tomPietrowski
Active member
For the odd run through the park they may be fun but you would not want to use them as a dedicated park ski. The swing weight would be heavy and you would end up ruining the edges so try would be pretty useless out of the park. If you are looking for 1 ski quiver I woul look elsewhere.
DUKES
Active member
i rode 192 bent chetlers all season in the park. i had the most fun ever. The swing weight was a bummer wished i had the 183 version. The platform made you feel like riding boats. the opus would be even more fun due to the flex. next season the opus is on my list for 70/30 park/all-mountain.
DUKES
Active member
i rode 192 bent chetlers all season in the park. i had the most fun ever. The swing weight was a bummer wished i had the 183 version. The platform made you feel like riding boats. the opus would be even more fun due to the flex. next season the opus is on my list for 70/30 park/all-mountain.
NinetyFour
Active member
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=69887654015087813071320:DUKES said:
This video of Nick McNutt speaks volumes about pow skis in the park. Guy KILLS it.
SimplyClean
Member
13068460:tomPietrowski said:
It really depends on what type of skier you are. I know plenty people who love riding a pow ski through the park...lots of people use Bent Chetlers as seen above.
If you're not doing anything crazy in the park the Opus will do everything you want it to. Hell, I've seen people in Summit ride a pow ski in the park ALMOST to a pro comp level of skiing. But I would say, if you're looking for a fun wide ski similar to the Opus for the park, the Sir Francis Bacon would be a more fitting ski for it.
13068460:tomPietrowski said:
You're sort of right, obviously you ruin the edges but that is true of any park ski. The swingweight is only an issue if you ride a certain way, some people love fat skis in the park. The OP must know that fat skis are heavier so won't be as easy to spin, so he must be looking at them for a reason.
As fat skis go, the Opus will be one of the best in the park, as it still has Line's big edges and thick base, meaning it will last pretty well and it has a playful flex pattern. I rode Bacons in the park for ages and they were super tough and the swingweight was never really an issue. I've also ridden EP Pros as a park ski, which were too soft but still fun and Bentchetlers. I've scaled back to a 102 waist these days but for sure the Opus is a park option for a certain type of skier.
[video]https://vimeo.com/97411008[/video]
TheDetectives
Member
w.e. floats ur boat homie, ive seen a guy who shreds the shreditors and does some pretty tech stuff, im going to be on a ski around 108 next year in the park, and a couple of my friends have gotten wider skis too..
the rocker makes them fun and playful its definetly a good option for the most fun
the rocker makes them fun and playful its definetly a good option for the most fun
tomPietrowski
Active member
To the guys above sure you could ride an opus in the park but why? I have ridden my rocker 122's through the park an yeah it can be fun but why would you buy a pow ski to wreck in the park. Sure park ski edges will break too but park skis are cheaper then pow skis. I also don't really understand why you would want a bi heavy ski everyday in te park. They will not be as fun as park skis and you won't progress as fast. So overall yeah you can do it but why bother. Why not get a cheap park ski and then some cheap pow skis that you can keep the edges nice and sharp on.
SimplyClean
Member
13071747:tomPietrowski said:
If you're smart about it, you can buy pretty much any pow ski for ~$450 shipped....which is about what I've paid for on my park skis, maybe a little more. I'd never buy them full price at $800.
And I'm sorry but for me personally, and many others, I have wayyyyy more fun in and outside the park on a wider ski. Skiing a 80-85mm park ski is just not even a thought in my brain anymore. You and most people may think differently but it's just different preferences and skiing styles really...
13071747:tomPietrowski said:
Because it's fun, more fun for some people. There are plenty of things that are way easier on pow skis than park skis, surface swaps and butter combos for example. It completely depends on what you want to do on your skis. Just because you want to ride park doesn't necessarily mean your ultimate goal is a triple or 810 out.
I know from your posts that you generally prefer a stiffer ski that is quick edge to edge, stable through the turn etc. But not everybody likes a ski like that and to say a pow ski is less fun in the park is your opinion. Yes, it is fun to strap on a pair of skis you can really rail on every now and again but mostly, I like to play on my skis and narrow skis just aren't as fun. I probably feel the same way about taking a skinny stiff ski out as you feel about taking your rocker 122s through the park 'fun but i wouldn't want to do it every day'.
There simply aren't any park skis that are as playful as something like the Bacon or Opus. Sure there are soft park skis but they are never as surfy as a wider ski. There are disadvantages of course, you can't spin as fast and learning some tricks is harder but for an increasing number of people, it's a trade off worth making to have a ski with the stability, flex, profile etc that you get with a fat ski.
TheDetectives
Member
13071747:tomPietrowski said:
i dont think thats true at all, if you feel comfortable on a 86mm waist full camber ski, thats ur thing, some people prefer a wider ski,with a bunch of rocker, sure theres some extra weight that comes with it but when u buy a big ski thats something u know going into it and the opus (i think) has the fatty base and edges
tomPietrowski
Active member
13071980:TheDetectives said:
Yeah I guess I just don't get I myself but I'm never looking for one ski to try and do it all. I strongly believe in getting th right ski for the purpose but obviously that can get pricey.
.squirrely.
Active member
i ride blends and love them, and would definitely be able to handle another 10+mm underfoot, but anything that wide would get wrecked by rails real quickly