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!
Surface Double Time vs No Time
Posts: 88
-
Karma: 20
Ok I have been searching around for a while and I haven't found much on the Double times. I currently only have Live Life 2's and I'm looking for something thats fairly soft and will be fun in the park so I don't destroy my LL2's. I like the fact that the Double Times are 90 underfoot compared to the No times only being 76 in a 172. I've always liked riding wider skis but I don't want something thats stiff. These would be 100% for park and I use to snowboard so I have that kind of riding style that the whole hill is a park to me. Thanks +K for answers.
Posts: 11817
-
Karma: 903
Posts: 1499
-
Karma: 945
ive ridden both and i like the double time better. both are awesome skis with a perfect flex pattern, its just whether you want a little fatter ski with the double time. the double time has a really poppy tail that makes ollies easier, and the no time has slight early rise in the tip and tail.
Posts: 88
-
Karma: 20
Thanks. Which one would you say is easier to butter and do little surface tricks.
Posts: 37380
-
Karma: 119,949
The doubletime is a much more beefy'er ski than the no time. A bit stiffer and wider at 89mm underfoot. Its a great ski. Very solid on jumps. Every landing feels like you stomped the hell out of it. Pretty difficult to whip butters around on the d-times due to how stiff they are so I would reccomend the no time if you want to butter. Doubletimes are pretty solid and great on rails. Swaps might be a bit of a challenge to bring around on rails/boxes on them because of how wide they are but other than that its a great ski.
Posts: 88
-
Karma: 20
Thanks for the answer. That's what I was thinking. I just wish they made the DT with early rise like the no time. I have never owned a ski under 87 underfoot and the narrowest I've ever ridden was 83 so is it that big of a difference with only 76 because it just seems really narrow to me and would be really hooky.
Posts: 659
-
Karma: 473
dont look just at surface. yeah they make great skis but they dont seem to have what your looking for. I would suggest line anthems. they're wide and pretty soft
Posts: 88
-
Karma: 20
Yeah I know I was looking at some invaders for $225 but they sold while I was out of town and I can get a deal on surface and I have very little money to spend on skis right now. If I had more cash I would hands down buy anthems because their one of my favorite skis.
Posts: 513
-
Karma: 277
love my no times! they are playful but snappy for ollies at the same time, havent tried the double times so i cant really help you with those.
Posts: 1499
-
Karma: 945
I can butter my double times like crazy, but I weigh 180 pounds so that helps. I never really noticed the early rise on the no times and rail tricks on a fatter ski aren't really any harder
Posts: 11817
-
Karma: 903
^he's right about the wider skis, if anything, wider skis are more stable on rails. i went from an 80mm to a 90mm, and the wider ski was way more fun on rails, imho. not a hindrance at all
Posts: 88
-
Karma: 20
I have no worry about them being harder for rails. I used rossi scratch bc's for rails (100mm underfoot) and loved it. I was worried that the no times would be too narrow. Also I forgot at the top but I'm 5'7" 150lbs and I would get the 170 double time or the 172 no time. The last park skis I rode were 166 1080 foils if anyone can compare the flex of those to either of the surfaces that would be sweet.
Posts: 88
-
Karma: 20
Posts: 699
-
Karma: 85
samezies my no times are the shit
Posts: 88
-
Karma: 20
How are the double times compared to the old watch lifes in terms of flex? Also how do both of them compare to invaders?
Posts: 1499
-
Karma: 945
stiffer and a bit wider in the tip and tail. i have a pair of the old black watch lifes and they are softer than invaders and the double times are stiffer than the invaders. invaders are a cap construction jib ski, double times are a beefy park ski kind of different categories.
Posts: 88
-
Karma: 20
Ok thanks, how much softer are they than LL2's because thats what i'm riding now and they have actually broken in nicely with a perfect flex for that ski.
Posts: 37380
-
Karma: 119,949
Considering it is mostly an park ski, I would say substantially softer. But they still are pretty stiff making them pretty damn awesome on jumps.
Posts: 2310
-
Karma: 390
if you like the anthems i would suggest looking into some masterminds the flex pretty much the same just a little skinnier underfoot.
Posts: 88
-
Karma: 20
Thanks I think i'm gonna go with the double times instead now because I would much rather have a wider ski than a narrow one. I can get a really good deal on surface thats why I wasn't even looking at different skis. I also feel that if I can butter my 179 LL2's I shouldn't have a problem throwing around 170 double times once I get use to a cambered ski again. lol
Posts: 1499
-
Karma: 945
good choice. i have live life 2s as well and id say the flex on the double times is decently softer. really good park ski though. i beat the ski out of park skis and they only have a few edge cracks underfoot.
Posts: 246
-
Karma: 7
I have NEVER in 20 years on skis loved a park ski as much as my no times. Also, you can get the larger size because they ride like a shorter ski due to early rise. I see you have already made your decision but if you ever get a chance check em out.
Posts: 1306
-
Karma: 23
i just picked up some anthems and they sound like they are perfect for you. they were 300 not sure if that is in your budget
Posts: 5
-
Karma: 10
I just started skiing the double times a few weeks ago. The 180 is way softer than the 170 (especially in the tail). The flex pattern of the 180 is not even as the tail is way softer than tip. Overall, I love the ski and can take it anywhere.
All times are Eastern (-5)
