Its quite a long one, so Ill leave this intro at that.
Shape/Flex/Construction
The 1000 Park has a fairly typical construction for a modern park ski.
Wood core (poplar), a capped sidewall construction, and sintered bases.
The shape of the ski is actually fairly traditional, 1000 certainly havent tried to reinvent the wheel here.
The flex of the ski is definitely soft both in terms of longitudinal flex and torsional flex.
Most skis are fairly stiff underfoot and softer in the tips and tails.
Overall, I was happy with that decision.
The low weight and soft flex, especially the torsional flex, make them incredibly easy to turn.
They werent just talking about park skiers, but also your everyday recreational skier out for a cruise.
They turn extremely easily but have enough camber to hold an edge on grippy groomers with no issue.
Nimble is the description that 1000 use and I would concur with that.
However, they are definitely soft and as with all skis, there is a tradeoff.
There is a definite speed limit at which they feel comfortable and a snow hardness limit.
At that point, the not very rockered tips bite and things get a bit sketchy.
In other words, they can be a bit hooky even on hardpack.
So for clarity, these are far from the main offenders.
You arent buying these for soft snow, and 1000 Skis arent trying to sell them for that.
But with minimal rocker they are far from the best soft snow ski in this width category.
It almost goes without saying that they deflect a lot in chop/crud, but they do.
So in terms of on-snow performance, these are a somewhat mixed bag.
Why did we stop making skis that tick that box by the way?
And by that, I mean actually butter properly by flexing the ski.
But on the 1000s, you do actually need some technique.
“I found the 1000 Park insanely light as well, quick to manoeuvre and easy to flex.
Said swingweight is low, simple as that.
At the same time, the close to full camber profile makes them surprisingly stable on landings.
Durability:
Unfortunately, I simply cant comment on durability with any reliability.
There are a couple of topsheet dings and some normal base scratching but nothing to remark on.
When mounting, the screws bit well and the core felt solid.
Comparisons:
Vs Line Blend
The closest ski to the 1000 Park is undoubtedly the Blend.
Whereas the 1000 just toes the line of stable enough for me.
And it has a lot more pop.
Which given that Peyben was heavily involved in designing these, isnt surprising.
Then again, the Blend is still even easier to butter/flex, theres always a tradeoff.
Theyre also just more fun.
Conclusion:
Ski reviewing is hard.
But I worry about the results of my words.
By virtue of the size of the Newschoolers platform, these reviews can have a genuine impact on sales.
The 1000 Park takes a different route to jib ski territory from most.
It recalls older park skis, with its mellow rocker lines and near full sidecut.
Because of this, the ski is a much more accessible shape for normal skiers.
Their own marketing description describes these as buttery and nimble, and that they certainly are.
But they do have limits: they arent really for charging, huge jumps, or icy days.
And above all they are a buttery, super lightweight park tool with a ridiculous amount of pop.
