Although the Pandora performed exceedingly well in powder and soft chop, I had yet to experience how it handled harder, bumpy snow. Frankly, I was a little nervous since they had felt so light in powder. The following day we skied Mizuno no Sawa, the Avalanche Control Area at Niseko Village, which offers some of the mountain’s steepest terrain. It was our first completely sunny day, and the snow warmed up quickly and became heavy.
At all speeds, the Pandora was aggressive at moving through the wet snow. Granted, I was forward and making strong turns, but I happily found that the skis’ shovels were sturdy enough to plow through the chop more effortlessly than I expected.
Sometimes, when making slower turns, the skis did not have quite enough momentum and I would meet more resistance against harder patches of snow. If I was tossed back or lost control, the Pandora was forgiving, and only required a quick adjustment to get forward. The Pandora definitely liked to be skied faster, and even in the crud, I was confident that I had enough ski underfoot to let ‘em rip.
After Mizuno no Sawa, we made our way up above tree line where I encountered some large, wind-scoured patches. At medium to high speeds over hard, bumpy snow, the tips hardly chattered.
Further down on the steep groomer, Namara, in Niseko Village, I was able to bring the Pandora up to high speeds. Though I was not expecting a 115mm ski to carve all that well, with enough speed I could really get the ski on edge, and the faster I skied, the easier it was to lay the ski over.
Because the Pandora is so wide, I needed to have a pretty centered and balanced stance through the turn, but I still was able to find the playful bounce in the ski while carving.
The Pandora actually carved better than other narrower skis I have ridden. Often, tails that are rockered tend to wash out on hardpack; since the Pandora does not have tail rocker, the ski gripped the snow through the entire turn.
Skiing moguls was the only time I didn’t enjoy the Pandora. It simply felt too wide. It’s definitely possible to ski bumps on the Pandora, it’ll just be a lot more work than your skinny skis.
Initially, I was a little disappointed that the longest length Line offered in the Pandora was 172cm—I was hoping for a slightly longer ski. However, after five days of skiing the Pandora in both tight trees and more open lines, I was pleased with the 172 centimeter length. I was able to make quicker, more dynamic turns when necessary, but I felt that I still had enough ski under me to take fast, straight lines through chop.
Although the 172cm was certainly enough ski for me in Niseko, it would be awesome if Line also produced a longer model for those tough chicks looking to ski bigger, faster lines. If the Pandora came in a 178-182cm length, I think a lot of girls would stop reaching for men’s skis.
The Pandora stacks up well against other skis I have ridden; it dominates a variety of conditions instead of excelling in only one or two areas. It floats just as well as the Black Diamond Element—another 115mm ski—but manages crud much better. And though the Moment Bella outperforms all other skis I have ridden through hard chop, surprisingly, the Pandora is a close second.
As I suggested earlier, I think the Line Pandora is pretty close to perfect. It is a rewarding ski that will satisfy many skiers. While it is stiff for a women’s ski, the softer tip and tail make it accessible to a wide range of skiers without compromising its high performance for hard-charging skiers. And given that the ski excelled in almost every condition I skied in, the Pandora is not only a great powder ski but an awesome all mountain ski, too.
So, to all of you intermediate to expert women out there looking for a fast, fun and beautiful ski, I’d encourage you to check out the Line Pandora. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
Go to Stella Selden’s 2nd Look at the Line Pandora
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?