What do you like to see in a park ski?

panojibber

panojibber

Active member
As the title says, what do you like to see in a park ski? ie. Reduced edges, butterzones, carbon fiber stringers, rocker, amount of camber, sidecut, etc etc...

If you have any thoughts, please post them, and say:

1. Why you would like to see it.

2. What effect it would have.

3. And how you would do it.
 
Here's my ideal park ski.

Tip: 111

Waist: 84

Tail: 111

Length - 176

Camber - Normal

edges, nothing fancy. Solid, beefy, and full wrap around.

Construction: sidewall construction, with a bamboo or other medium flexing wood core that pops like whoa, with a symmetrical flex. And send a carbon fiber stringer up it for fun, but I don't think they do much. More of a selling point.

pretty much an average park ski..
 
115-86-110
mini rocker
butter zone right where the rocker starts
soft tip/tail stiff under foot
 
yeah thats true, 3/4 wrap is way more less likely to delam, or have edges popping out then full wrap.

SO mine would be some thing like:

180cm,

83mm waist

19m radius

fully symmetrical

aluminum or titanium tip spacers.

3/4 wrap

thin bamboo core,

two layers of fiberglass

one layer of carbon

yup thats it.
 
not if they're made right I don't think. And if they're not full wrap around eventually something happens and you have one sticking out. like catching it on a rail when you're spinning out or something.
 
no, K2 actualy did a study on it a few years ago, skis with edges that wrap all the way around the ski are more likely to delam, or have edges pop out then skis with a 3//4 wrap.

3/4 wrap > full wrap, its a fact.
 
185cm

125 tip

95 waist

125 tail

stiff underfoot.

soft in the tails and tips.

indestructible core of some sort of light material
 
i'm a big fan of the anthem. felt too soft for me at first but after a little time, its the most fun park ski i've used.
 
why would anyone want a rocker park ski? it doesn't really provide any support when landing, so unless your name is jon olsson and you land perfect everytime its not good. also, theres no pop when just jumping. rockering a park ski is fuckin stupid unless you want it for 100% butters and small rails
 
ski one:
115 - 88 - 115.
fairly stiff flex.
lightweight
double edges.
stubby tips.
low swingweight.
about 171

ski two:
120 - 92 - 120
soft-mid flex
rockered
lightweight
about 176
 
this year I feel the anthem and bluehouse MR. revolutionized what a park ski should be by having skis specifically made for park that are 93 under foot. Such a stable base and I personally feel the perfect size. Rocker seems pointless in park. Normal side cut, normal camber, beefed edges with a soft flex that can still hold an edge at speed.
 
i've skied anthems, i didn't find them particularly stable, loved to wash out and sloppy at speed. maybe im just used to really big jumps, but i actually like stiff park skis. like addict pros seem to be the shit IMO, though i dont know about the durability, which has been a major issue with my park skis.
 
It's really all about how you land. I've noticed with soft, worn out skis that if yuo land back seat a little, you wash out, which is fine because it helps you land correctly. But i love my anthems and used them on PCs big jumps this year and never had a problem. Shit i hit like 75ft jump at the usfo two years ago with thalls, one of the softest park skis, especially for someone my size and it was fine. But some people prefer a very stable landing, but ive never had a problem with soft skis and big jumps and i am at no means a small guy.
 
something like:

110-83-110

169-173cm

standoutish graphics

rrp $300 or less.

a fat base

something good for ollying

some sort of wood core originating from canada

however, i have never found a ski that meets much of that criteria

 
Why do so many people want 90+ park skis?

Just because Pollard makes them doesn't mean you need them, they seem so unnecessary.

less than 78 in the center is key, it is far more functional in the park. The swing weight is far less, rails are easier, spinning is easier and theoretically they should delam less than a soft, wide ski. JO made his 77 and Line 1260s, the greatest park skis ever were 76 and soft as shit, too bad they only last like 20 days.
 
So what makes the anthems so great? Is there one specific feature you like about them, or is it just the whole package that makes them a good ski?
 
its really the whole package. read my review in my signature for some more detail, but quickly here...

IMO

why anthems are the best ski ever made:

1)butter zones--ski feels fairly stiff until you lean in, then it just gives like no other

2)girth--i use these skis for 3 feet of fresh and they float and ski pow just the way i like to ski it

3)stability--comes from girth, locks on to rails and stomp the snot out of landings

4)symmetrical--why center mount a non-symmetrical ski? carves switch almost better than forwards

5)cheap--i dont think i need say more for us working folk

6)graphics--who doesnt want a truck stop wolf or pink keyboard on their skis?!?!?
 
118-90-118

symmetric

reinforced edge underfoot

mid flex

extremely light

butter zones

carbon ollieband

mini rocker both sides

173

its like a shorter version of reno rocker, except not as much rocker and with an ollieband
 
183 length

115-87-115

flex exactly like the 07-08 dumonts (stiff tail, moderately buttery nose- super poppy)

one layer of edge armor and graphics like the salomon suspect

"mini-cap" construction topsheet like the scratch ghetto

oh and the scratch ghettos also say they have a "THC core", and i'd want that cause it just sounds awesome.

so basically a symmetrical 08 dumont with edge armor
 
180cm long

137-100-127

pretty damn stiff but poppy

JO pro lightness

sidecut made to be mounted -2 back from true center

 
i absolutely loved my chronic blends in the park, i think a symmetrical version of them would make my nipples harden. they were so poppy, buttering was loads of fun because you can pop way high out of them and be in total control the whole time. they were super solid on jumps and were extremely stable on rails.
 
85mm waist

Nearly symmetrical but a bit wider on the tip

Fairly Stiff, I don't like noodles

Not a ton of camber so they're not as hooky and sketchy reverts

Sandwich Construction

Indestructable edges
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top