Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Line Elizabeths too short?

profile picture
III
Posts: 2041 - Karma: 22
Are these skis too short and/or soft for a big aggressive skier like myself? And for that matter, how big is pollard, because his previous pro models have been in the 180s.
Dec 19 2005 6:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Shadows
Posts: 8068 - Karma: 43
how tall are you? duh
Dec 19 2005 6:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Shadows
Posts: 8068 - Karma: 43
and how much do you weigh
Dec 19 2005 6:17PM
0 0
profile picture
III
Posts: 2041 - Karma: 22
well, its sort of more of a general question, but im 6'3" and 185 lbs.
Dec 19 2005 6:22PM
0 0
profile picture
strode
Posts: 7549 - Karma: 14
are they too short/soft for you to charge 2000 vertical feet in two turns? probably.

are they too short/soft for an in-bounds jib/tree/park ski, even for a big guy? i don't know actually. i'm just a tad smaller than you and wondering the same thing, because i really want to pick up a pair. the only thing i'm worried about right now is nose diving them in deep stuff when they're center mounted. i've been skiing a pair of of centered 177 stl's for the last few weeks and they were fine (surprisingly) except for the extreme nose dives in anything more than 5" of snow
Dec 19 2005 6:44PM
0 0
profile picture
airFS
Posts: 512 - Karma: 10
If I were you I would be looking at the prophets. If I were actually looking at a big mtn. ski I would go for the 4frnt VCT just cause no one has them.
Dec 19 2005 6:52PM
0 0
profile picture
spere
Posts: 6105 - Karma: 248
this guy who skis at hood contacted line and they are making a cusom pair of elizabeths is a 189 i believe
Dec 19 2005 7:11PM
0 0
profile picture
III
Posts: 2041 - Karma: 22
they just look like like so much of fun though.
Dec 19 2005 7:17PM
0 0
profile picture
AwR
Posts: 5147 - Karma: 1,880
thank god im short, they are the perfect height for me
Dec 19 2005 7:31PM
0 0
profile picture
knotbox
Posts: 1790 - Karma: 13
im 5'9" i reckon that they are short for me but ima get em because i reckon the snowboard sidecut is dope and can deal with being short..and if pollard rides em who i know is taller than me they should be dope
Dec 19 2005 7:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Triple_Strum
Posts: 6384 - Karma: 953
can someone be of assistance and post the sidecut? III, I was also wondering about these skis since I am big guy. I have to think that there are numerous other good selections for what you want. It seems this year's scratch BC would be an excellent choice for you: slightly on the stiff side with a decent sidecut, in 185 of course. I think anything under 180 cm for someone who weighs over 180 lbs just wouldn't cut it for really hard aggressive turns
Dec 19 2005 7:46PM
0 0
profile picture
knotbox
Posts: 1790 - Karma: 13
i think they are like 130 110 129
Dec 19 2005 8:11PM
0 0
profile picture
wachutu
Posts: 123 - Karma: 10
i have a feeling (because alot of people are complaining about them being too short including me) that next years version will have a longer size.. cause i know alot of people who woulda bought them if they were longer
Dec 19 2005 8:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Triple_Strum
Posts: 6384 - Karma: 953
139/110/137 with a 15.5 m turning radius!! HOLY CRAP! That is so short. Most park skis are between 17-21 m. That is impressive. That makes me want a pair so badly, too badly they are midget sticks :/ And I know people will say that isn't too short because of the design, but I weigh 200 lbs! I really want to hear from someone who has them now
Dec 19 2005 8:25PM
0 0
profile picture
strode
Posts: 7549 - Karma: 14
they seem like the sickest tree/pow stash ski EVER.
Dec 19 2005 8:47PM
0 0
profile picture
KeegLove
Posts: 10166 - Karma: 55
way way wayyy too small for you i hope to god they come out with 182s next year.
Dec 19 2005 8:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Triple_Strum
Posts: 6384 - Karma: 953
yes, I would love to see that ski between 182 and 188 cm
Dec 19 2005 9:19PM
0 0
profile picture
strode
Posts: 7549 - Karma: 14
^yeah but if you think about it, once you make it that long you take away that super tiny sidecut, meaning you lose the whole point of the ski which is to be as snowboard-like as possible. but maybe i'm wrong. i've been debating over these skis forever
Dec 19 2005 9:23PM
0 0
profile picture
xpingxpongx
Posts: 579 - Karma: 11
i haven't ridden these skis yet so i'll reply back when i do but i've done a bunch of research into them and they are one of the most unique/ interesting skis i've ever seen. first off the sidecut isn't a specific "radius" because its elliptical (meaning that theres a more drawn out straighter part of the edge with a more pronounced tip and tail, like most snowboards) which apparantly makes it much easier to do quick snappy turns in powder, polard even said that he can't straightline in these skis because they are too fun to turn with. also it has a symmetrical flex pattern, meaning the ski flexes the same in the tip as the tail. they are also on the softer side to allow for butters. i think they are going to be such a fun ski to ride in all conditions. as far as the ski being too short you people aren't thinking about the actual width of the ski... 139 110 137 is FAT and should easily be able to support people over 200 lbs. i think you all should stop thinking in certain lengths and start thinking in surface area. i'll get back when i get them myself.
Dec 21 2005 6:00AM
0 0
profile picture
III
Posts: 2041 - Karma: 22
yeah, but if they are soft that means big guys could easily overpower them.
Dec 21 2005 8:21AM
0 0
profile picture
HiTz
Posts: 1467 - Karma: 11
just buy karmas and call it a day
Dec 21 2005 9:36AM
0 0
profile picture
fredsters_s
Posts: 1659 - Karma: 16
man how can you compare these two skis?
Dec 21 2005 9:58AM
0 0
profile picture
WIfreeskier
Posts: 8125 - Karma: 65
ahhh we need this ski in the 180s in length...
Dec 21 2005 2:49PM
0 0
profile picture
III
Posts: 2041 - Karma: 22
i already have 4frnt MSPs, and i won't have money for lizas in a long time, but they just sound like so much fun.
Dec 21 2005 4:03PM
0 0
profile picture
joshbryant
Posts: 2133 - Karma: 228
I used mine on sunday, had the best powder day of my life.
Dec 21 2005 4:32PM
0 0
profile picture
ArmadaEC
Posts: 62 - Karma: 10
Im not a big guy, 5'10" and 140lbs, but they ride amazingly well for me. they are way shorter than my other skis but they dont ride any shorter.

they are also the most fun ski i have ever ridden.
Dec 21 2005 8:54PM
0 0
profile picture
III
Posts: 2041 - Karma: 22
well that wasn't very helpful now was it.
Dec 21 2005 9:29PM
0 0
profile picture
AKFREERIDE
Posts: 1718 - Karma: 11
waaaaaaaay to small. get a ski over 180 dude.
Dec 21 2005 9:54PM
0 0
profile picture
RandomHero21
Posts: 1335 - Karma: 15
I compared these skis to my Mothership 182's and 10cm is a very small difference. With the 110mm waist I think the surface area will make up for the loss of 10cm for myself if mounted at the suggested position.
Dec 22 2005 10:14PM
0 0
profile picture
SteezyAintEasy
Posts: 472 - Karma: 13
so is it about the surface area or length?
im 185lbs 6'0
should i buy them?
Mar 15 2008 11:23AM
0 0
profile picture
zackblain
Posts: 2322 - Karma: 22
if you want  a softer fat ski, I'd go with bacons. You're wayyy to big for lizzies.
Mar 15 2008 11:28AM
0 0
profile picture
PBraunstein
Posts: 1448 - Karma: 3,804
and do niether of you realize this thread is from 05???  
Mar 15 2008 11:44AM
0 0
profile picture
SteezyAintEasy
Posts: 472 - Karma: 13
haha zach if i get them will i get the shit beat out of me at bristol?
Mar 15 2008 11:45AM
0 0
profile picture
SteezyAintEasy
Posts: 472 - Karma: 13
yes.

how tall is pollard?
Mar 15 2008 11:52AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)