I loved how beautifully the skis floated, though I can’t say I was too surprised considering that they are built for powder. I experienced little, if any, tip dive, and the skis felt light and nimble under my feet. I cruised through the trees and open spaces, alternating between quick, pivot moves and big, sweeping turns.
When making larger turns in deep snow, the Pandora gave no indication that it lacked tail rocker; however, at slower speeds in tighter sections, the tails would sink a little.
While the Pandora feels incredibly light, it offers impressive stability at most speeds, in part because of its construction. The ski has a full aspen core, which in my experience makes the ski lively and responsive, without sacrificing too much stiffness.
The Pandora is also built with what Line calls their Thin Tip technology, which reduces the thickness of the core and sidewalls in the tips and tails in the attempt to minimize swing weight. I certainly noticed that I could easily throw the skis sideways to adjust my speed if I was coming into tight trees a little too hot.
Line has also taken steps to attempt to dampen the vibrations created in choppy snow. While the Pandoras felt fluid and surfy through the untracked snow, I braced myself as I encountered some chop toward the bottom of the run. This proved to be completely unnecessary.
As I watched other skiers getting bucked by the deeper ruts, the Pandora still managed to glide along the surface, smoothing out the variable conditions. I was shocked by how solid they were given my speed and the rougher conditions, especially considering how light they had just felt. The ski was able to quickly and easily adapt to changes in the snow.
After making several early morning laps on Strawberry Fields, we worked our way out toward the Waterfall Gate in Niseko Hanazono. Even though it was already mid-morning, we were still able to find some untracked lines.
In the Waterfall area, the snow was slightly heavier, and the skis were cutting tracks into the creamy, dense snow. But this was where the Pandora truly displayed its playfulness.
As I weighted the skis to enter a turn, the snow provided some resistance, and I could really pressure the ski to generate momentum; the Pandoras responded with lots of energy and pop.
In all my subsequent turns on harder snow, I could easily find this sweet spot, where the ski would kind of bounce back through the turn. This responsive and poppy quality of the Pandora makes it really enjoyable to ski.
It is easy to feel the Pandora’s characteristic “pop” by doing a simple hand flex of the ski. The ski is stiffest underfoot and gradually softens toward the tip and tail. Personally, I enjoy having softer tips so that the ski is more manageable when making smaller and quicker turns; but the trick is finding a ski that provides this, but is also stiff enough to charge through crud.
I like your review but this ski most certainly has a rockered tail. It is not as exaggerated as the tip but it definitely has a few inches of rocker in the tail. The camber underfoot is nice and poppy. All of these pieces make this ski so fun.
Hi Katie,
Thanks for your post. Although Line does describe the Pandora as having “early rise” in the tail, this rise is hardly discernable from a conventional twin tip tail, and actually has less rise than a number of non-rockered tails. All twin tips have some degree of rise in the tail, so the rise you see on the Pandora is a conventional feature of a twin tip shape. Hope this clarifies things!
Julia
As a person who works in a ski shop, I respectfully disagree. These undeniably have rocker in the tail.
Hi, Katie, thanks for writing.
In 2010/11, Line described the Pandora as having an early rise tip. For 2011/2012, the Pandora came back unchanged, except now Line’s spec bar says that it early rise tip and tail. But the Pandora remains like the 10/11 Sir Francis Bacon on which it was designed: no tail rocker.
As Julia noted, any conventional, twinned tail is going to have a touch of rise, and the rise of the tail on the Pandora is actually set further back than say, the Line Mothership, which was always described by Line as a conventional twin, never as a ski with tail rocker. Having said that, technically, it’s correct to note that Pandora (nor any twin tip ski) doen’t just twin up at the absolute end of the tail, but that means that any twin could now be said to have early rise….
So the Pandora has what we would still call a conventional, twin tail, but we wouldn’t quibble if someone wanted to call it a twinned tail with a tiny amount of early rise / rocker; the only worry is that the description might be misleading to someone who thinks that the Pandora is going to provide that looser, surfier feel of a truly rockered tail. Anyway, tomato / tomatoe.
The good news is that people can just look at the camber profile we’ve posted on page 3, and see for themselves how much or how little “rocker” those tails actually have.
A few “inches” of Rocker? Lolz
If Im 5’1 and 115 pounds, what size should I get? 152?
Hi Carolyn,
Would you be able to provide a little more information on your skiing ability and where you will mostly be skiing the Pandora? I am guessing you might appreciate the extra length of the 162, especially if you want the Pandora as a powder ski. Thanks!
Julia
Does the 2012-2013 Line with the griffin graphic come in length less than 162
I Am an expert tree skiir who absolutely loved the original K2 Phat luv and have been looking for a like “minded” ski since then…
Hi Carol,
The 2012-2013 Pandora also comes in a 152cm. Thanks for reading!
Julia
Hello Julia,
Thanks so much for your great review, looks like Japan was a blast! I’m looking for a new touring set-up and have been reading many of your reviews, which have been super helpful. I’d normally demo skis until I find the right fit but, alas, I no longer live in the mountains and I’d like to be set up before making my yearly pilgrimage back. So I’m hoping you can help me out with the decision.
My current touring set-up is the 2008 BD Verdict, 170 cm 134-102-120. They’re great but I’m looking for something fatter in the waist and the poor things need to be retired anyway, for both our sakes. I ski everything on the mountain, spend about half my time in the resort, the other half in the backcountry. I didn’t grow up ski racing, nor do I charge hard, but I can keep up with those who do. I have a resort set up, the Faction Agent 174 cm 132-102-122 which I’m happy with and are fairly new, so I’m really just looking to replace my BC skis.
I’m nervous about the fat waist. I’ve never skied on anything as big as the Pandora; is it a completely different way of skiing? Is it reserved for hard chargers? I’d normally opt for the 172 but should I downsize to balance the fatness? I first was looking at straight touring skis, G3s, Voiles, BDs, etc…but found that many of them weren’t that much lighter than the Pandora, and if they were, they might not be as solid on the downhill. I’m not looking to rando race, just for a lighter powder ski that can hold its own in big, all mountain terrain, without driving me off of it. Does the newer version of the Pandora fit my bill more so than the 12/13? You seem to have a strong preference for the older version, which I’ve heard the same from others as well.
Is it silly to put Dynafit bindings on the Pandora? Any other skis come to mind you might recommend? Thanks so much for your input and for your great reviews, they’re super helpful!
Cheers,
Marie
Hi Marie!
Thanks so much for reading! I wouldn’t be too nervous about a fatter waist for your new powder / backcountry ski – it’s really fun! I also don’t think you need to necessarily size down with the wider width. Having a longer ski for powder makes it a lot more fun, and and I think the low 170s would still be completely manageable for you.
I actually have Dynafits mounted on my 12/13 Pandora and have been really enjoying that setup! Like you said, this isn’t a super-light setup for some long randonee race, but the ski’s weight has never been an issue on longer tours and the skis are so much fun on the way down. I would definitely recommend this setup.
As I’m sure you’ve seen, the newer Pandora is a little narrower underfoot (110mm), but it’s also a very different design. I really like the new Pandora – it is a more versatile ski in a wider range of conditions, but doesn’t have quite as good powder performance as the older version. So, I think the new Pandora would still be a good touring ski, but if you want something that’s better in powder, I’d say go with the older version if you can find one.
Another ski I’d recommend looking into as a touring ski would be the Rossignol Savory 7 (106mm underfoot). The Savory 7 is a really light, soft-snow oriented ski that is incredibly fun and easy to ski. And paired with Dynafits, you’d have an very light setup that would be great for powder. You could also check out the Star 7, which is 116 underfoot if you wanted fatter.
I hope this is helpful, and please let me know if you have any more questions!
Julia
Hello Julia! Thanks so much for your response! I’m finding myself in the same search, rereading your reviews and just saw your answer to the question I posed a long time ago..Thanks for the advice, it’s super helpful!
Hello!
Im also looking for a BC set up, and was wanting to know the weight of these skis? like if I mounted a Salomon guardian 13 touring binding on them, is that going to be super heavy?
Thanks!
Hi, I’m not sure if these comments are read on older posts, but I figure I’ll ask anyways!
I’m looking into powder skis for my girlfriend, and am not sure how to size her for skis. She’s 5’6″ and 160lbs. She’s an intermediate/advanced rider, and is looking to get a pair of skis for softer snow days and for getting into touring. Would the 162cm Pandora’s be a good size for her? Or would she be better on 172cm?