K2 Lotta Luv

[num]

The ski

K2 Lotta Luv 163
15 m turn radius
119-78-105

The skier

Intermediate, 2nd year skier. 5'4 ~180. Likes a shorter ski, enjoys going fast on easy cruisers.

The conditions

It was a beautiful day! Conditions were varied. Some nice soft snow, ice in shady spots and slush in sunny spots and some death cookies for good measure.

Short Turns - 2
Medium Turns - 3
Long Turns - 3
Rebound - 2
Stability - 4
Forgiveness - 3
Grip - 2
Steeps n/a
Crud 3
Powder n/a
Ice 2

Tested Length Felt: Way too long
Ski Sidecut Felt: Just Right
Ski Flex Felt: Just Right
Best Described As: Uninspiring (sorry!)

So for starters, the length wasn't right for me. It could be the reason I was so unimpressed with this ski. My everyday skis are 158, I like shorter skis in the mid 150s, have skied fine on longer, and the only Lotta Luv available was a 163. Figured I'd give it a whirl and see, because the Lottas were on my 'give it a try and see why people love it' list. I was thoroughly unimpressed with this ski. I didn't feel that I had good grip. I didn't feel any pop in my turns. They felt really heavy while skiing, and skating to the lift was laborious.

I don't know if it's the ski itself (as it relates to my preferences), the length, the tune or a combination, but it's the only ski I've tested that I just wanted to give back. I'd give it another try in a shorter length to be fair, but that's about it.

 

[persee]

num,

I'd definitely try it in a more appropriate length if you get the chance. It's a really fun ski when you get the right size-fit!

 

[jaydog]

Yes, I demoed it recently and was blown away by how easily it zipped through moguls and how confidently it hung on to steep terrain.

 

[mollmeister]

I do think you should try in a shorter length. Sometimes I find them a little too forgiving, but generally mine have been loads of fun, and I think they really did a lot for improving my skiing.
:D

 

[MaineSkiLady]

Too bad you couldn't have demo'd another K2 model to compare side by side. I understand there are huge performance differences between One/Lotta/True/Burnin'. Lotta was the only ski I didn't want to give back. But as I reviewed, it asked me to turn it up to do the job. Wasn't content just cruising easy, it wanted to MOVE. And then all the lights went on - for it and me. Just bashed all in its path. It is a damper feeling, heavier ski but worked great for its intended purpose. I had the great honor of finding true untracked (plus tracked), nothing deep (4") but it sure loved that. I only had one length to demo and little time, so DH and I were practically doing this in fast-forward.

Oh well, there's a perfect match for us all! Sounds like you're getting way close to finding yours!

 

[mollmeister]

Too bad you couldn't have demo'd another K2 model to compare side by side. I understand there are huge performance differences between One/Lotta/True/Burnin'.

True, true. I haven't skied them all, but IMO the Burnin' and the Lotta are very different, and I have heard the same about the others.

 

[mollmeister]

And has anyone skied the Tough Luv, which they added this year, between the Lotta and the Phat? I didn't feel like there was the *need* for another iteration on the theme. . . but maybe it rocks?

 

[MaineSkiLady]

Hope K2 isn't shooting itself in the foot by offering all these sometimes befuddling choices! Almost seems like too many at this point! Burnin' is a major, popular choice in the hardpack-East---but I get the impression from reading here that some people have made the wrong choice and would do better with an all-mountain, a bit softer in flex, wider waist.

I am currently on the hunt for a wider waist +- 80 (as this is one of the first seasons since I've lived here where the expense can be justified), Lotta fit a lot of my needs, wish I'd had time to demo more.

DH and I are actually taking 2 pairs out with us each time lately: the carvers and the crud-busters (less sidecut, wider waist - but not wide enough).

Skiing is getting complicated, at least in the ski specialization arena!!

 

[volklgirl]

num,

You and I had almost identical experience on this ski except you say "too long" and I said "too short". Otherwise, our impressions were the same. I'm kinda glad to know I'm not the only one who just wasn't impressed.

 

[Daria]

I have not tried the Lotta's and I know several others who swear by them. I just bought a pair of Burnin's and they are awsome for what I want in my quiver. They are fabulous in ice and hard pack so I think for the spring early morning conditions they will be perfect. And I love the bumps I can dance right through the zipper in these skis. Just love them. They leave a huge smile on my face. I am 5'5" and 140 lbs and bought the 153 length. I also have a pair of last year's model Phat's (153 also) that are not quite as fat as this year's model. I figure in the spring, I can switch out at lunch and ski the Phats when the slush kicks in. If I had the 2008 version of the Phat's I might have gone for the Lotta v. the Burnin but think the 2007 model was too close. The Phats are fabulous in the pow and just about everything except hard pack. And again , the Burnins are amazing in the bumps

 

[SusieK]

I’m just back from Colorado where I spent a day demo’ing K2 Lotta Luv’s and Nordica Olympia Victory’s. I’ve been skiing on Volant Vertex Powercarver’s at 167cm for the last 7 years – really love them but they are getting to the end of their life cycle. I want to replace them with a similar ski. I like the Volants ability to ski any condition and keep on ticking. They do well on hard pack, bust through crud and handle power days like a champ. I was able to demo these two skis on hard pack, moguls and 4 day old windblown sun baked crud – unfortunately no fresh powder.

At 5’6”, 150, I tried the Nordica’s first at 154cm, liked them on hard pack but not so much in moguls or crud. Next came the K2’s at 153cm. (Regarding sizing, the 153 K2’s were longer than the 154 Nordica’s due to difference in the manufacture sizing.) I definitely had more fun on the K2’s on hard pack – quicker turn to turn – and more comfortable in moguls. They did surprising well in the crud even at this length. I then traded in the 154’s for the K2 160’s. The 160’s were about the same height as my Volant 167’s, go figure. They really felt like a much longer ski over the 154s and took a run to get use to. They were a little more sluggish on hard pack, not much of a difference in moguls, and a tiny bit more stable in the crud. I want to continue demo’ing this ski specifically to see how it handles powder. So far I’m liking the Lotta Luvs, more tests will tell…

 

[MaineSkiLady]

I want to continue demo’ing this ski specifically to see how it handles powder. So far I’m liking the Lotta Luvs, more tests will tell…

I'm only 125-130#, but I loved the 160 Lotta - and I did have a chance to run it through some non-deep (5+-") pow, and they rocked. Also an ace crud-buster. Fit the bill of everything I was looking for. Would have bought the demos right off the rack had they been for sale (they weren't).

 

[marta]

I’ve been skiing on Volant Vertex Powercarver’s at 167cm for the last 7 years – really love them but they are getting to the end of their life cycle. I want to replace them with a similar ski. I like the Volants ability to ski any condition and keep on ticking. They do well on hard pack, bust through crud and handle power days like a champ.

I had Volants too and chose K2 because I had heard they have a similar feel. It was an easy transition for me!

And has anyone skied the Tough Luv, which they added this year, between the Lotta and the Phat? I didn't feel like there was the *need* for another iteration on the theme. . . but maybe it rocks?

See my review under Gear reviews. To me it felt like Burnin Luv's fatter sister. Did well in powder, trees and bumps. Felt pretty stiff, which let it hold a good edge on the groomed. I just thought it was heavy - Dang marker bindings!

 

[MaineSkiLady]

I just thought it was heavy - Dang marker bindings!

I am so glad to hear some consensus with my opinion of Markers re weight. They really are heavy compared to others - I can even feel it when on a chairlift w/o foot rests.

 

[Little Lightning]

Actually, it's not the bindings that causes the weight as much as the way the system is mounted on the skis. Take a look at an unmounted Luv ski. There are metal bars that the binding attaches to. I was told that this is what causes the extra weight.

The solution is to buy K2 skis flat and chose your own binding.

 

[mollmeister]

Actually, it's not the bindings that causes the weight as much as the way the system is mounted on the skis. Take a look at an unmounted Luv ski. There are metal bars that the binding attaches to. I was told that this is what causes the extra weight.

The solution is to buy K2 skis flat and chose your own binding.

I bought mine flat, and even though they have Markers, they aren't *system* bindings, and they are waaaaay lighter than a friends with the system. Still not as light as, say, Salomons, but lighter than system Markers.

 

[num]

Here are some pics:

 

[MaineSkiLady]

^^^ Ah, that's the ski. That's the '09. I'm not a "swirly" girl. Looking for new/old stock 08. Hard to find them flat. Would definitely prefer this.

 

[mollmeister]

^^^ Ah, that's the ski. That's the '09. I'm not a "swirly" girl. Looking for new/old stock 08. Hard to find them flat. Would definitely prefer this.

Flat ski, on sale, several lengths, from my *friends* at Outdoor Divas:

https://www.outdoordivas.com/outdoo...Luv+by+K2&pf_id=PAAAAAMFGBGOOMEA&dept_id=5070

 

[mollmeister]

Oh, and for what it's worth, it looks like they found some 163 Auras:
https://www.outdoordivas.com/outdoo...+by+Volkl&pf_id=PAAAIACFFNBDAFFE&dept_id=5070

Their site has shown them as *coming back into stock* for a few weeks. . . and here they are. Probably only a couple, though.