"Wider"skis for park?

why

why

Active member
I've been looking at skis wider or at least 100 underfoot for riding park. Such as the the Blend 132-100-122. Any of you guys have any experience riding park on wider skis. I ride 99.99% park because I live in Wisconsin. I'm well aware of the obvious pros and cons. So any very specific information would be of great help to me.
 
Wider Park Skis:-

Line Blends (100 underfoot)

Line Chronic (maybe a bit skiinier than what you would want but I like them, 93 underfoot)

Moment PB+J (101 underfoot)

ON3P Jeronimo(96 underfoot this year but for next year sizing up to +100 check the sia threads for more)

ON3P Jefferey (Not a pure park ski though they would probably be alright in the park, 108 underfoot)

Hope this helps, there are definitely more out there, just these are the ones that have interested me before
 
i ride a Rossignol Scimitar half of the time, split 50/50 with an s4. they are so super fun, 98 under foot, full reverse camber, super fun
 
I wouldn't get Hellbents, too heavy and fat for park, don't be that guy. Look into the Surface Watch Life. 100 underfoot, regular camber. I see tons of people on them in the park, and they kill it. Blake Nyman has also used it for the Nine Knights comp (fun fact)
 
Yeah I'm riding Chronic and they're really sick I'm just looking for a little more width(lawl).
 
if you saw the newschoolers homepage photo a couple days ago the kid hitting urban was on these

check em out for sure
 
would the surface one lifes be too fat for park? Im not really skiing much park anymore but i'd like a fat ski for next year. Would they be a little ridiculous for the east coast?
 
I would take mine Into the park from time to time, they were alright, but the 189 length was a little big, regardless of their running surface. They are fun for rails and jibs, not sure how I felt about icy landings
 
I use Line SFBs in the park (108 under foot) and I think they are perfect so far.
 
I ski park often on '11 Hellbents. Sure they suck balls to spin but if you want to do the biggest, craziest screaming semen anyone's ever seen, you can't beat them.

Hit jumps out to maybe 50ft on them and damn they're stable when you're landing.

That said, I wouldn't buy them JUST for a park ski. I ski park on them because sometimes I can't be bothered taking 2 pairs of skis up the hill, and I'm waiting for the sun to soften the snow in spring.
 
ive rode my blends in the park a bit and have had no problems. they aren't to wide or heavy for playing on rails and are reasonable for hitting kickers. only things i would say against them is that the weight centre is pretty far back so a centre mount might be a bit weird on them but a 1 or 2cm from centre would be a nice balance. Because of the soft flex and early rise you do get chatter on the tip and tail when at higher speed on hard pack.
 
My Fat-ypus I-Rocks are quite fun in the park, even on boxes, but I'd imagine the L-Toro would be better overall for park. Both are poppy fun skis

 
Skiing wide skis in the park is the best i skied 2010 hellbents in the park for 2 years super soft (almost too soft at times) But a kid who skis Granite Peak designed Midwest park skis(106 i think) through RMU called the Wiscos i went from a pair of hellbents to these and they're alot of fun.
 
I always rode S3's in the park. i loved them, now my friend has them and he is progressing extremely quickly with them
 
Ive been riding my One lifes in park(regular sticks snapped) and if anything ive been more consitent on my rail tricks...surface swaps never felt smoother
 
They're fun, I just found them a little big for jibs, rails were fine, but things like wallrides and stuff, I felt restricted
 
I've been skiing wide skis in the park for 5 years. I'd suggest in no particular order:

Blends - more traditional, more all mtn'ish

Bacons - just got these, so sick

Lizzies - classic, super soft, skied on a few pairs of these the last 4 years.

ARV's r kinda boring

Really want to try that new RMU ski
 
oh, and i should mention i live in MN. wisco is pretty much the same. I would stay away from a lot of skis mentioned in this thread. Most of them are decently stiff and that combined with 200-300ft vertical and the width takes the fun out of having a wide ski a little bit. while i lived in CO, i wish i had something a little stiffer than the lizzies plainly b/c stuff is bigger and faster.

all the line skis I mentioned are relatively soft. so are the atomic blogs. most the guys you've seen w hellbents in the park have older models which are much softer than the recent ones.
 
https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/673109/ lizzies with sweet bindings. 350 shipped. i would buy these if i could
 
seems kind of ironic to me that a midwest park skier designed a fatter park ski.but i for sure want to try a pair. i was gonna buy some apostles but they seemed to have to much of a pintail for riding switch comfortably.
 
I wouldn't go much wider than 100 underfoot. Especially because you are skiing park and not a lot of pow. Wider skis put a much greater amount of force on the screws holding your bindings onto the ski (wider ski = longer lever arm). As a result, as skis have grown wider much faster than binding screw patterns have, more and more bindings are pulling out as wider skis are increasingly used on non-powder conditions.

When you are buying park skis, you get what you pay for in quality. Brands like moment, 4frnt, and on3p are made in the US and have reputations for high quality skis. As previously mentioned, i would recommend that you look into the moment pb&j or the on3p Jeffery/Jmo. all three are fun and high quality skis. If you get a chance to demo, do it, as you are the only one who can determine what you will like best.
 
fuck off, i know my shit... there is no rocker. there is no regular camber. there is reverse camber, thats it.

instead of calling me out, learn your shit or get out of gear talk.
 
I have line Elizabeths for park (110 waist). They have not only held up better than thinner skis, but also jib better in my humble opinion. they also butter like crazy, and land things just as well. 30+ foot cliffs, 45 foot tables, double kinks, and pow. Awesome...
 
Lots of votes for Lizzies and SFBs... I've had it said to me and I've said it to others, the new SFB is like a Lizzie 2.0. It does everything like the Lizzie, but better.
 
they are stiffer but i barely notice. the rocker pretty much cancels out the increased stiffness. I love the Lizzie, I had 3 pairs. I would have said with 100% conviction it was my favourite ski ever until I started riding my Bacons, now I'm not sure which I prefer.
 
Very true, the new SFB is definitely more versatile, but its why I have a quiver. I would love to try the new bacons. But I think I am gonna just make my own version.
 
While your physics is correct, it doesn't matter as much as you'd think. I've owned multiple pairs of lizzies over the years. Second pair had 140 days on them, 110+ in the park. My current pair has over 300 days. 100+ of them are on a 200ft vertical hill w a rope tow where im hitting 40+ rails/hour. Besides about an inch of edge missing underfoot, they're fine. No binding pull outs. They're mounted w fks, the narrowest bolt pattern on lizzies (the softest and thinnest core I've seen) w no issues.

And bringing where the skis are made into the discussion? Give me a break. Yeah I'm sure those armadas and atomics made out of the country are of lesser quality....I'm sure those multiple pairs of lizzies I've ridden into the ground for the last 4-5 years have horrible quality....Where the skis are made has nothing to do w/ their quality. How and what they're made out of does. Its fucking 2012. I'm sure on3p's are great quality skis, but the amount of dick riding and suggestions given to kids to ride them in the last year is a joke. /rant

But yeah, demo if you can. If you're spending $500+ on a pair of skis, they're all going to be pretty damn close in quality, especially when you get into wider widths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top