Wide park skis?

chunk.

chunk.

Member
Im looking for a wide park ski preferably 90-97 mm that stays stable underfoot. I'm 6'3" and 270 so I don't want something too flexy. Any suggestions?
 
2 things here:

1: Post this in gear talk. it exists for a reason.

2: while we are on the topic of wide park skis, Nordica soul riders are not as soft as McSlay makes them look and ON3P Kartel 98s are also a solid bet.
 
13276934:fresh_prince said:
Go with line blends or al dente's. Both pretty soft though
Click to expand...

Dude asks for with a stiffer flex pattern, and you post up two of the butteriest skis in that category... WTF.
 
Cant go wrong with the armada alpha x

2dbp2sj.jpg


Pretty damn sexy too imo
 
13277057:Sequoia said:
Just bought these, I'm going to go ahead and say if you're looking for a park ski I would look elsewhere. They're super asymmetrical and can't be center mounted without completely fucking with the sidecut and shape due to the differing rocker lengths in the tip/tail. If you're genuinely interested in them hit me up after the 2nd and I'll let you know how they ski.

As for other skis,

Line Blend

ON3P Kartel 98

Armada Al Dente

Surface Double Time

Line Chronic

Moment Tahoe
Click to expand...

The moment tahoes are looking pretty sweet. thanks man +k
 
Faction 2.0's might be up your alley but they are a little bigger underfoot but have a symmetrical cut for the park with a decent flex but stays stiff for the heavier weight.

Idk for sure though because I have never ridden them.

maybe someone here who has could off more insight.
 
Batalla park reapers in a 183 would be good. 91 underfoot I think with good amount of rocker. Stiffer than most skis listed. Maybe close to a kartel flex?
 
13277184:Twandos said:
Faction 2.0's might be up your alley but they are a little bigger underfoot but have a symmetrical cut for the park with a decent flex but stays stiff for the heavier weight.

Idk for sure though because I have never ridden them.

maybe someone here who has could off more insight.
Click to expand...

I got the 2.0s

Only got to ride them for a week, but they feel extremly stable at high speeds and yet playful in the park or on side hits. They work great on rails too, didn't ride any kickers yet though.
 
Most of the options given here you will find much too soft.

Also, one important factor is size. I would not go anywhere shorter than a 185 length.

Best stiffer wide park skis to consider would be:

(In order of skinniest to widest)

Volkl Bridge in a 187

Dynastar Slicer in a 187

ON3P Kartel 98 in a 186

Icelantic Gypsy SKNY in a 190

Moment PB&J in a 188
 
13277057:Sequoia said:
Just bought these, I'm going to go ahead and say if you're looking for a park ski I would look elsewhere. They're super asymmetrical and can't be center mounted without completely fucking with the sidecut and shape due to the differing rocker lengths in the tip/tail. If you're genuinely interested in them hit me up after the 2nd and I'll let you know how they ski.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda surprised to hear this. The alpha has definitely been considered a park staple for years now...unless they completely redesigned it, it's an amazing park ski (they don't put those 2.5mm edges on for carving - I see tons of them in the park) I have the Halo 2 which is just a softer version of the alpha and it's the best park ski i've ever owned. It may not be intended for center mount, but its hardly a directional ski either...I'd be interested in hearing what you think when you ride them. I thought long and hard about buying a pair myself.
 
13278212:Sequoia said:
This year's Alpha X is pretty asymmetrical. It's a do it all type ski, that's what I meant. Not necessarily park specific. The nose rocker shifted the front contact point back 10 cm from where it is in the tail so you have to ride it at least 2.5 back if you intend on riding it anywhere outside the park. It's pretty fat in the nose and thin in the tails for added float, you can sorta see the shape in that pic, it's "a mini JJ" as described at SIA.

Armada says it's their most versatile ski, seemed like the OP was looking for a true park ski. I'll update when I ride them on the 2nd
Click to expand...

Looking forward to hearing it.

The alpha is for sure a do all ski, but if you ride much park your gonna be in for a pleasant surprise. My Halo 2s (last years b dog) have the exact same elf shoe shape in the nose, same 95mm underfoot, same 'mini jj' dimensions as the alpha, just softer flex [Mike Hornbeck rode them last year as his park ski] I ride them 1 back from center and I love them. They charge all over the mountain - I love the versatility of the elf shoe technology, floats the tips in the pow, and makes for a sweet platform to butter from (doesn't affect 'the switch' either)

If OP didn't weigh 270lbs, I would have recommended him the B Dogs (the new, softer Halo 2 predecessor) but being a little on the heavier side and wanting something stable underfoot - the same ski just stiffer (the Alpha) was my recommendation. Been riding em (almost daily) for a year now and I'd say I have a pretty good idea on what to expect from this ski (and like I said, best park ski I've ever ridden.) I stand by my recommendation OP, take it or leave it.

Either way I have a feeling you're (Sequoia) gonna be stoked once you ride them. I certainly wouldn't shy away from the park with them. Not to take anything away from the fact that this ski can rip anything, it really excels at everything...my preferred style of ski.
 
13278452:Charlie* said:
Looking forward to hearing it.

The alpha is for sure a do all ski, but if you ride much park your gonna be in for a pleasant surprise. My Halo 2s (last years b dog) have the exact same elf shoe shape in the nose, same 95mm underfoot, same 'mini jj' dimensions as the alpha, just softer flex [Mike Hornbeck rode them last year as his park ski] I ride them 1 back from center and I love them. They charge all over the mountain - I love the versatility of the elf shoe technology, floats the tips in the pow, and makes for a sweet platform to butter from (doesn't affect 'the switch' either)

If OP didn't weigh 270lbs, I would have recommended him the B Dogs (the new, softer Halo 2 predecessor) but being a little on the heavier side and wanting something stable underfoot - the same ski just stiffer (the Alpha) was my recommendation. Been riding em (almost daily) for a year now and I'd say I have a pretty good idea on what to expect from this ski (and like I said, best park ski I've ever ridden.) I stand by my recommendation OP, take it or leave it.

Either way I have a feeling you're (Sequoia) gonna be stoked once you ride them. I certainly wouldn't shy away from the park with them. Not to take anything away from the fact that this ski can rip anything, it really excels at everything...my preferred style of ski.
Click to expand...

A really impresive opinion on those skis, i want to understand that thing of the surface contact and the binding mounting position, the base contact start earlier cause of the early rise on the tip right? So that would mean that the binding should be mounted not in the center of the ski but in the recomended point which is 2.5 cm lower? How about the swing weight? And the feeling on the tricks while spinning? Would i be having less contacto point on the tip if i mount them in the real center? How could that affect the functionality of the ski?

(Sorry for asking to much, its just that im in the fight between the alpha and the chronics)
 
13281563:Sequoia said:
The 182's dimensions are as follows:

110 122 95 112 102

The tip rocker is around 10cm longer than the tail rocker, so if you center mount these you might have some difficulties, it really isn't recommended. Practically no one on Armada center mounts their skis, they're all at -1 or -2 which is where I'd recommend you mounting them.

I have mine at -2.5 and plan on posting a review as soon as I get on them this weekend
Click to expand...

Excellent, i'll be waiting to read it.
 
13277385:ItsKevin said:
I got the 2.0s

Only got to ride them for a week, but they feel extremly stable at high speeds and yet playful in the park or on side hits. They work great on rails too, didn't ride any kickers yet though.
Click to expand...

2.0s could be right up your alley. At 102 they're slightly wider than what you specified, but honestly 5mm is hardly noticeable. They're a very stable ski, even at speed, but the rocker gives them a nice playful feel in the park when you throw your weight around. I'm 5'9" 145 riding 178s, so you've obviously a bigger dude, but on the 184 I think you'd be fine.

What kind of riding do you do anyways?
 
13282433:amo said:
What kind of riding do you do anyways?
Click to expand...

I spend about half my time in the park and half on groomers and tree runs. I'm from Indiana so I get stuck in a lot of crappy snow conditions so I want something that can float over crud. I mainly hit mid sized jumps up to 35 ft in the park and I tend to stay away from boxes and rails.
 
13282676:Collin_Shaw said:
I spend about half my time in the park and half on groomers and tree runs. I'm from Indiana so I get stuck in a lot of crappy snow conditions so I want something that can float over crud. I mainly hit mid sized jumps up to 35 ft in the park and I tend to stay away from boxes and rails.
Click to expand...

2.0s
 
Seems like Batalla Reapers would be perfect. They are 91mm underfoot and pretty stiff, great park ski or every condition ski with the rocker and sidecut. The tail rocker is a bit smaller than the tip rocker and it gives them really nice pop, even if you are a big dude.
 
Nothing but good things to say about the alpha xs I have like 20 days on them already. Mine are mounted 2 and a quarter back from center and they perform well in the park and all mountain. Idk if they'll be stuff enough for you tho I only weigh 180
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top