Vicious vs. Elizabeth ?

s.jeff

s.jeff

Active member
Ok guys, Im lookin for a ski to ski pow next yr. Im 5'4 ish and like 120 and i will grow for nxt yr. So what you guys think ? Elizabeth or Vicious ?????/
 
If you kill it rock the Elizabeths, otherwise 169 Seths would be fun. There's a 12mm difference between the waists though, are there any other skis you would consider?

I think you should get a 170cm Kingswood Midfat custom built. Let me know if you're interested.
 
I have the 169 vicious and I really like them for everything. I they are great for powder, especialy at your size. they are also a little better for all mountain.
 
I'm in the same debate for next season, cept bacons cuz I'm 6 feet tall. I'm also considerin scratch BCs though cuz supposedly they are pretty light, but I haven't had a chance to check 'em out in person yet so I have no idea what I'm gonna get.
 
you're really small, so elizabeth's may be ok. vicious is a great all around ski though, that may be a better bet.
 
the 169 seth is less ski than the Elizabeth if anything. It's easy for us bigger guys to compare the 179 and 189 k2 we've skied to the 172 line most guys havn't. I'm 6' 200lbs and I have successfully skied 5 powder days on the 172 Elizabeths, big lines and cliffs and all. Sure the outrun is sketch balls but they stomped 25 feet for my fat ass no problem and I know that 169 seths couldn't get anywhere close to that.

The vicious is not a stiff big mountain ski it's all mountain freestyle. the liza is back country freestyle cuz it's wider but they are both really soft powder skis.

The Elizabeth would feel on this kids feet the way the Prophet 130 feels on mine and there is no comparison between that and a seth in the powder or crud.
 
A beefed, slightly modified Vicious might actually be the perfect fat ski.

We at On3p are looking into it.

Keep in mind that SVs are AK worthy for Seth... but...he's like 5'6 and rides 189s with a thick ass deflex plate. So yeah.
 
haha I have to quote myself because I have just been informed by a good buddy that the Elizabeths that he and I have skied were from an early handmade batch from Canada that were made stiffer and with a better base and topsheet.

So as far as the retail Elizabeth that all you kids have been talking trash about the flex of I now understand. Disreguard my defense of this skis charging abilities because you can't get your hands on the pairs that charge.
 
I don't, actually. Somewhat less, yes. But not what could be called a lack of sidecut.
 
Stephen it depends what you'd rather do. Shred lines and drop cliffs (sick) or Boost some sick BC booters (also sick) but ya I guess when it comes down to it the reason I've been telling you to get a fat ski is to shred lines and the vicious would still be sick on the BC booters so you should probably go with it, as sick as the lizzas are.
 
if its your only ski, seths for sure. elizabeths should only be a second or third ski, not your primary ride.
 
im gonna go with the elizabeth for u man. im like exactly ur size and weight and i had a pair of pistols this year and they were mad fun in the pow and all around the mt but they are heavier then the elizabeths. and i like my skis light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top