ONE LIFE +k

bump

Pretty sure there is an edit with Forster Meeks and the one life's on the front page right now, check that out. Besides that Surface skis perform amazing but their durability is usually questionable.

yee i saw that! they look sick i just want some rider reviews and other stuff like that

bump

bump

bump

I've got one life's in 179. Bought them for a really good deal just cause why not, didn't really know what I'd use them for. Now that I don't have a big pure powder ski, these have taken over as my powder skis, and I'll use them on those mixed, powder and park, or snowy park days.

They're a shit ton of fun in the park. Super poppy, press like crazy on rails. Not the greatest for jumps, purely because the camber underfoot with big abrupt rocker makes a sorta sharp angle and makes them a little slow, so hard to get speed for the massive jumps. (Though I think this years are flat underfoot, which I think would help a lot with speed since you wouldn't have that abrupt camber to rocker contact point. Plus would probably carve a little more predictable)

They're awesome for butters too, even though they're very stiff, that big rockered tip and tail and firm flex gives you a good platform to press off of. You can literally sit back and tail butter/slash and hold it for a long ass time.

For powder, I will say the 179s are a little short. It makes that abrupt rocker a little catchy, you don't want to land far forward off anything big. But the tails are stiff so you can land on the tails no problem. When you get the hang of how to weight/ski them, they're super fun, pop off of everything, super pivoty and slashy, you pretty much can't ski them hard enough. The faster and more aggressive you ski, the better they are. If you're more of a "textbook form" skier, pole plants and perfect archs, finesse kind of skier, they may not be for you, they can feel awkward if your not pushing them.

They're also maybe the only skis I've found fun in rough/choppy conditions. They just plow and pop through whatever.

I'm 5'10 155 lbs, and the length is perfect for park, I can't imagine how much the 189s would kill it in the powder, they must be unstoppable. I think ideal length for everything, for so wine my size would be like a 181-185. The flat underfoot in the new ones may help make up for the shortness of the 179s in powder.

woah, thanks a bunch man! anyone have anything else to add? talking strictly park

They are sooo amazing. they have totally surpassed my expectations as an everyday ski. I am 5'10" and 130lbs (yeah I run bro) and I ride 189s. I don't ski park or do flippy spinny BC booters, so I really cant suggest a size for you.

the fact you love them is all i needed, thanks dude

I'm 5'10" 155lbs and have the 179s, I bought them for a morning powder/afternoon park ski, and so far they have been amazing. Although they aren't my regular park ski, when I bring them into the park they are super fun for rails and butters, and also fun for dicking around on jumps. Overall super fun ski.

ive owned the one life and the new life and i love both. i think i like the new life a bit just because it's more of a straight pow jib ski than an all-mountain jib ski and it's rocker isn't as abrupt.

for hitting bc jumps the new life is hard to beat. it is basically a fat rockered symmetrical park ski that you mount dead center.

lol i shouldnt even have said that, i wont be moving to B.C. for a couple years and these skis will be beat by then :P

i would say yes, they will be too small. I haven't skied a pair recently but the old 179 live life 2 (now the one life) ran at about 176-7cm tip/tail.

making the 189 a 186, which seems like it would be a little too long still? i may have to go with the 183 one time instead, are they basically the same ski, just different dimentions?

The 179 definitely won't be too small for park. They measure pretty true to size. The only reason they'd be too small is if your doing a lot of powder skiing. Since you can ski these with a pretty centered stance, don't need to lean back or lift the tips much in deep stuff, they may get a little catchy when your landing bigger cliffs. Definitely will need to land a but on the tails.

It was a weird adjustment for me because anything 5-10ft, you could land centered no problem, but bigger stuff or flatter landings if you do the same they'll dig in and catch and you'll face plant. It's not the tips sinking. It's the abrupt rocker catching.
The tails are plenty stiff so you can land backseat no problem and have plenty of support. Just need to get used to what you can land centered and what you need to be a little backseat for.

But yeah, 179s for sure for park. 189s for sure if it's a pure pow ski.

would they get wrecked if i ski pretty much just park with them?

will that work even at my height and weight?

Yeah for sure, I mean, it's a rockered ski, you only have what's touching underfoot to land on, longer tips and tails wouldn't do shit. 179 I think is a pretty good length park ski for someone 6 feet tall

yeah i have a pair of volkl bridges in 179 and they feel perfect, but the rocker isnt nearly as aggresive, but it isnt flat underfoot, its a continueing rocker (true reverce camber) so do you think because the one lifes have that big flat portion under foot they will feel pretty similar although the tip and tail have a more aggresive rocker?

if you want them for park go one life or one time. get a bigger size though. i'm 6' 175 and i sold my 179's because they were too small.

maybe the 183 one times then

I never really got why people think rockered skis ski shorter, I like only having that short section of ski underfoot touching the snow, I thought my hellbents, EP pros, and the one life's were awesome for carving, maybe because all your weight is concentrated underfoot, not spread through the whole ski? So you can really dig in and carve hard.

I just don't see how having longer tips and tails, which aren't touching the snow anyway, would help in the park

those will be tiny. im 5'8 or so and im using 171 for pow. youll need at least 180 something

im not using them for pow

wouldnt the flat portion under foot be longer? and more stable?

Yeah it'll be a little longer, but it's still a ski with giant rocker, a couple more mm's of ski underfoot isn't gonna make much difference. Regardless you still have to ski, pop, and land off the underfoot section of the ski. If your landing on your tails your gonna be backseat regardless of if it's a tad longer underfoot or not, you just ride a big rocker ski differently, you don't rely on your tips and tails like you do a cambered ski. and when you get used to it, stability isn't really an issue, you adjust and ski it in a way where length isn't really a factor.

Look at pep and Andy in idea, they had 179 bents, super strong skiers, much softer skis, probably a bit less ski touching underfoot, and they killed it on them.

pep is my favorite skier of all time ahaha yee you're right rad. ima go with the 179 thanks for all your help dude i wish i could like tip you or something ahahahahaha inma give feedback or w.e. though, all your help will not go un-noticed!!!