Member of the Month

Biffbarf
February, 2025

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!

Elizabeths: Originally Marketed as Powder Skis

profile picture
barberdude
Posts: 520 - Karma: 140
I have the 05 first edition Elizabeths and bought them for powder skiing 4 years ago for a ski season I spent at snowbird. When I got them they were marketed as a freestyle powder ski. Now i've heard people say Elizabeths are not powder skis for the last year or two. I understand Line now markets them as Pollards park ski but, when they first came out and were developed they were a freestyle powder ski that was supposed to ride like a snowboard. EP pros didn't exist, bacons didn't exit, so this was the freestyle powder ski. I have tried to find the line catalog from that year to prove it but it's no where to be found, but I did find Line Uk's webpage for the 05 Elizabeths where they are clearly said to be a freestyle powder skis and no where is it said to be a park ski. This is an official Line site.

http://www.lineskis.co.uk/h/n/BUY/hardware/ALL/256

I bring this up because every other day someone tells some kid interested in Elizabeths that they are not powder skis. Maybe they are not marketed that way now and there are better options, but if you are a smaller guy they will kill it in powder, which is what they originally were released for. I do agree that they're amazing in the park and most people buy them for that reason now, but realize ski marketing will change and how some people use skis will change. Hellbents are not park skis, but a lot of pros use them in the park, should they be called park skis? Elizabeths work everywhere, don't label them as just park skis because Pollard does now. I love Line skis, that's all I buy, and I love my elizabeths, but realize they are just changing the marketing of them.
Jul 26 2009 11:08PM
0 0
profile picture
barberdude
Posts: 520 - Karma: 140
http://www.ski-review.com/content/view/161/34

Here is a review claiming they are powder skis.
Jul 26 2009 11:11PM
0 0
profile picture
ski_DC
Posts: 1347 - Karma: 58
its not that they are changing the marketing, they are just shifting the niche the lizzies fill. They came out as a pow ski, but once the bacons came out, they got bumped to being an all mtn type fat ski with the bacons as dedicated pow boards. with the arrival of the eps, the lizzies fill the park slot, the bacons fill the all mtn/pow slot and the eps are the dedicated deep day skis. They are marketed for park because thats how pollard designed them. up until the eps came out, he did not ride a production ski unless he was in the park. in push, for example, he used some prototype skis that were 150 underfoot with bacon graphics. basically, the lizzies were intended as park skis, but until the rest of the series came out, they were marketed for pow. as the market for fatter skis matured, fatter boards were introduced until we have the pollard skis we have today.
Jul 26 2009 11:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Bassage.
Posts: 512 - Karma: 822
exactly, but none the less lizzies are amazing
Jul 27 2009 12:03AM
0 0
profile picture
barberdude
Posts: 520 - Karma: 140
^ I understand and that all makes sense, especially since I hope to one day get the 172 bacons to replace my elizabeths for pow. Still, they did change how they market them and even in this video pollard claims they are great all mountain ski for smaller dudes and girls at 1:25. Even this year Line on getboards talk about them as versatile for the backcountry. Yes, pollard designed them for park, but this was not what they were sold as for the first two models, thats my point. So, for people on NS to immediately shut down peoples interest in Elizabeths for powder to me is insane, which I see it all the time. I wish I could find Line's product video for the elizabeth when it first came out.


Jul 27 2009 12:11AM
0 0
profile picture
barberdude
Posts: 520 - Karma: 140
I found the 2nd year elizabeth video. Seems to push it as an all mountain ski.
Jul 27 2009 12:33AM
0 0
profile picture
barberdude
Posts: 520 - Karma: 140
^ ok maybe not all mountain, but its not specifically saying its just for park.
Jul 27 2009 12:37AM
0 0
profile picture
K_9
Posts: 879 - Karma: 10
THANK YOU! so tired of people saying they are park specific.
Jul 27 2009 12:44AM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,840
I bought mine for pow. Due to my size( 5'8" 130 pounds) I think they will do fine.
Jul 27 2009 12:47AM
0 0
profile picture
iFail
Posts: 2066 - Karma: 65

why today they are often not considered pow skis:
-short! most(MOST, not all) people wanting a ski to be used in pow that is that short are small enough to have absolutely no need for a pow ski.
-no rocker/taper.  Those two traits are in just about every ski put in the powder, and not in the all mountain, category.
-think about this, when Seth Pistols(96 waist?) came out in 03ish, they were considered pow skis.  Today, a 96 waisted cambered ski is an all mountain ski by our standards.  When Lizzies came out they were considered pow skis, but now that we have rocker/taper/superfats they are not considered a pow ski anymore.

But who TF cares what catagory people put a ski in, use if for whatever TF you want.  I started skiing backcountry(meaning 30 minute hikes on ridges going away from the resort) like 07 on 100mm tipped 175 GS skis, and the deeper the pow the better!

Jul 27 2009 1:31AM
0 0
profile picture
smuggs
Posts: 6561 - Karma: 1,375
in my opinion anything with a 100 plus waist i would consider to be a "powder ski"  having a powder ski doesnt mean you ski nipple deep every run. much like you can ski park skis in powder and vice versa. anyway there isnt a possibility that a 100 + waist ski is no going to be good in powder. all that reverse camber stuff is stupid anyway.
Jul 27 2009 1:56AM
0 0
profile picture
.peter
Posts: 1222 - Karma: 63
From my understanding they're both. Eric Polard designed them to be a park ski that could do the kinds of things he could do in the park in the back country. But, now that he has 2 other pro-models they have become more geared toward being a park ski rather than a powder ski.
Jul 27 2009 12:24PM
0 0
profile picture
fragglemuffin
Posts: 3312 - Karma: 443
i agree with what you are saying, even though i am one of the people saying that lizzies are not pow skis.  the reason i say this is because most the kids buying them now are 5'8" or around there, looking for something to ride in pow.  from my experience, your pow skis should be taller than you, or at least not 3 inches shorter than you.  also, the tips/tails on the lizzies are so low that, especially if you are big, they are gonna dig in like a mofo.  i guess i might also say they are not pow skis out of ignorance because i dont realize that pow to some people means 9 inches of east coast fresh instead of waist high fluff in whistler.  i live on the east coast, and i use my lizzies as all mountain/fun skis, but i dont call them pow skis, because i dont consider 9 inches of ungroomed slush as powder. just my .02
Jul 27 2009 12:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Lemuel
Posts: 14540 - Karma: 11,114
I am 5'10" 150lb and I bought them as my pow ski.  I ski on the east coast, all the pow is in the trees.  I don't know about you but I do not want to be skiing 189 Hellbents in the tight trees of Jay Peak.  I am glad you made this thread because I am always defending the fact that Lizzies can be used in the pow.  A pow ski does not have to have taper and rocker.  It does not have to have a waist over 120.  And the tip and tail height will really not have that much effect unless you are dropping cliffs and hitting jumps in teh pow where you will sink into the pow and have to rise out.  I do agree with Fraggle that the low tip and tail height may hurt it in deep pow, but in the pow that I will be skiing it will have not negative effect.  And to skier_man_sam,  I don't care if oyu skied gs skis in pow and you had fun on them.  I skied 171 invaders in p[ow and had fun on them.  Every point you make just annoys me a little bit more because it is not relevant.  
Jul 27 2009 2:00PM
0 0
profile picture
DrZoidberg
Posts: 5676 - Karma: 4,299
4 years ago the shape and geometry of a powder ski were different than they are now. If i went back far enough, my 85mm waist chronics would be considered a pow ski. If you showed people in 1980 some ep pros or bents they would be utterly confused as to what those skis were made for.

I guess that's kinda related.
Jul 27 2009 4:13PM
0 0
profile picture
no_steeze
Posts: 23992 - Karma: 4,273
yea this annoys me, they do just fine as a pow ski
Jul 27 2009 4:41PM
0 0
profile picture
barberdude
Posts: 520 - Karma: 140
The biggest reason I started this thread was because it seemed like every week people on ns who have been members for like a year or two would come on claiming elizabeths are not to be used as powder skis. This bothered me because it seemed like they had no understanding of the change in ski design and the ski industry as a whole.

Anyone out there have the first year elizabeth video, line catalog, or freeskier review?
Jul 27 2009 9:12PM
0 0
profile picture
iFail
Posts: 2066 - Karma: 65

-ok, some people place 100+ waist there and I understand why looking at a traditional 1995 ski, although if I wanted a one ski quiver for no pow it would probably have a 100+waist.

-now that isn't right, some designs are just failures and suck everywhere no matter how wide they are.

-really!??  haven't you skied some rockered stuff?  and I mean actually rockered, not Solly Lord or K2 Obsethed "rockers" that are pointless sales pitches.  Rocker is great.

Jul 27 2009 11:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Twig
Posts: 6442 - Karma: 61,183
Line on the 05-06 Elizabeth:
"Go big or go Goth with the Line Elizabeth Alpine Ski. Eric Pollard, one of the first skiers to take switch skiing to big mountain pow, thought it would be sweet to make a ski that rides like a snowboard in extra-deep fluff. With Line's help, he created the Elizabeth. This fat ride utilizes a snowboard-like sidecut and Line's Real Twintips, where the tip and tail are raised to equal heights, for confidence-inspiring switch skiing and landing. The symmetric flex and geometry, also borrowed from snowboards, provides the same feel and responsiveness whether you're riding forward or backward. Slantwall construction lends a smooth, forgiving feel to the Elizabeth, making it far more manageable than its waistline might suggest. The fatty base and edge provide added durability to this 139/110/137mm monster"
also:
"Heading up the 2006 range sees Eric Pollard launch the Line Elizabeth – an all Pollard powder beast with an impressive footprint 110mm waist to keep you up even in the deepest."
Jul 28 2009 6:55AM
0 0
profile picture
smuggs
Posts: 6561 - Karma: 1,375
rocker = cheater sticks. i have motherships and they only have slight early rise. thats as deep into the craze as i am going.
Jul 28 2009 11:22AM
0 0
profile picture
smuggs
Posts: 6561 - Karma: 1,375
i am a big powerful skier (i think) i rode the elizabeths my first two seasons in alta. one ski quiver.  i only sunk the tips a handfull of times. you need to understand how to ski them. i know a few other people that this was their only ski for the cottonwood canyons. it is a powder ski.

i am now on a pair of 195moships, 185 motherships with dukes have prophet 100s for touring. so obviously i got off the elizabeths because i wasnt trying to land switch in powder anymore and n ot incorporating butters into my day and skiing no pole pow. yea its not a traditional balls to the walls pow ski like im on now, but its a powder tool none the less.i also used them in the park. no way i could get my jib on with some 195 moships.
Jul 28 2009 11:28AM
0 0
profile picture
smuggs
Posts: 6561 - Karma: 1,375
here are the elizabeths really sucking in powder.Click for larger image
Jul 28 2009 11:38AM
0 0
profile picture
Midwestjibski
Posts: 1676 - Karma: 77
Yeah and think about it this way. Eric Pollard's "park" could be considered backcountry freestyle features like cliffs and such. My cousin has these skis and uses them for freestyle backcountry powder riding.
Jul 28 2009 12:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Leafman
Posts: 2178 - Karma: 251
Yeah i bought my elizabeths so i could go every where with one ski and be fine
Jul 28 2009 1:36PM
0 0
profile picture
DAPSKI
Posts: 414 - Karma: 141
i have used lizzies as a pow ski for 2 years skiing them in over a foot of pow in ut ca and co and i can say that they are deffintly good pow skis in lighter snow that i skied in co and in ut now problem with tip diving but maybe just a little to small for charging though crud and stomping bigger cliffs and airs.  in ca with the weater snow i had a little more trouble with the size and i felt like i needed something bigger and since that is were im living now i bought a pair of 189 live lifes ( really measure out to 186) lizzies are awsome but for a true pow ski i would go with something longer.
Jul 28 2009 4:55PM
0 0
profile picture
barberdude
Posts: 520 - Karma: 140
If you know snowbird you will understand this, but I loved riding the Elizabeth around the Gad 2 Lift and Thunder Bowl for powder runs all morning and then stopping by the Terrain Park below at the end of the day when everything was skied out and I was exhausted. They just slaughtered it everywhere.

I'm 5.7 and like 150 lbs so I never really had lots of trouble keeping my tips up.
Jul 28 2009 6:23PM
0 0
profile picture
iFail
Posts: 2066 - Karma: 65

I think that people are not saying that they can't be used in pow(obviously they can, 110 waist..), but more that they were not designed for pow.  Didn't Polalrd say he made them for park, so that he could have a short yet stable and buttery park ski, and that the width is to make them more stable than an 80 waisted park ski?   I rode 168 Rossi older version of the S1(80 waist) for a half a season in pow, and the half before that I rode 170 GS skis with a 100mm tip in the deepest pow I could possibly find.  I was probably 5'9" or more then and because I know how to ski I could do it, but that doesn't make them pow skis.     Then again, who cares what a ski is marketed as?  Plenty of people at Stevens Pass are on Hellbents every day, at least half of which are spent in park.

oh and 195 Moships are beast

Jul 28 2009 6:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Twinjibber77
Posts: 6239 - Karma: 2,355
I can see how he'd want a shorter park ski. I've met him an he's shorter than me. So Lizzies in like a 176 or 178 would be more like that for me. I think they come in sizes this year btw.
Jul 28 2009 7:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Kevski
Posts: 7056 - Karma: 2,790
I remember in the 05/06 powder gear guide the lizzies were in the deep pow section. It said they were perfect for deep powder but the shorter length meant they weren't a charging ski. Seems about right still. Just people including Pollard have found that they kill it in the park too, and new pow-specific creations have taken the pow title from the lizzies.
Jul 28 2009 8:00PM
0 0
profile picture
T.Rah
Posts: 153 - Karma: 10
eric pollard designed the newer model lizzys for park but he designed them to HIS liking. anyone who wants to ski them in pow can, no one is stopping them. i bought mine for powder days last year and ended up liking them so much that i use them everywhere now
Jul 29 2009 2:41AM
0 0
profile picture
barberdude
Posts: 520 - Karma: 140
There is no such thing as a newer model lizzie, nothing has changed since they came out other then possibly the top sheet since they a pressed by K2 now.
Jul 29 2009 6:02PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)