Results 1 to 19 of 19
Thread: LP Rider Lenght
-
11-12-2008, 04:19 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Posts
- 5
LP Rider Lenght
Legend Pro Rider lenght
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have questions about the length to get in this ski. I am a expert skier (I got over 100 days a year for a long time but that was 10 years ago. I now have a desk job ) that skis every sunday with my racer boys and racer coach wife. They rip everywhere. I am a little out of shape and am looking for every edge I can get. 6' /215lb 45 years old. I buy skis every 5 years or so and am on a Volkl 6 star now. I am leaning towards this ski in a 166 to have a quicker turning ski. My volkls are fine except off the run. input please This is my first post so feel free trash me as needed. My thought process is this last spring I demo some AC50 in a 166 very turny as expected, would a less side cut / wider ski work well in soft snow /powder and still allow a quick turn in tight trees. I am trying to think out side the box. I am secure in my manleyness so I don't need a long ski to compensate. 166
-
11-12-2008, 04:32 PM #2
-
11-12-2008, 04:38 PM #3Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Posts
- 5
thanks for the info
-
11-12-2008, 04:59 PM #4
And if you really do want a ski that short, don't waste your money on a legend pro. Those things are made to be damp and stable at speed. Something someone your size won't get out of any ski that short.
I'm 5'7" 165lbs and have only been skiing for about 5 years.......and I ride the older stiffer 186 LPs for reference.Besides the comet that killed the dinosaurs nothing has destroyed a species faster than entitled white people.-ajp
-
11-12-2008, 05:34 PM #5
Get the 176 LP or the 178 mythic rider if you want to stay shorter, I demoed both of those and they were sweet. I'm the same size as kidwoo (minus a few cheeseburgers ) and also went with 186's.
Move upside and let the man go through...
-
11-12-2008, 06:30 PM #6
Long skis are fun.
-
11-12-2008, 06:36 PM #7
-
11-12-2008, 06:59 PM #8
The red one or the blue one....which will it be?
KTM321,
It seems you've gotten lost on your way to epicski.com
"Not that there's anything wrong with that."
TGR represents a narrow segment...Big mountain freeriders, powder hounds, huckers and backcountry skiers...who live for the off-trail experience. Steep & Deep. Groomers only out of necessity to access the goods.
The TGR crowd also like there skis Loooooong. I'm 6'2" 200# and I have 1 pair out 9 under 187mm. Think head high +. Long skis give greater speed, stability and float off trail. Sidecut is not good in powder...hoooky. Turns? Highly overrated.
If your new to the off trail experience a 178 is probably just the step up you need. The Mythic rider or Legend 8000 would be a great choice. I'm a big fan of the way Dynastars feel on snow. Your best bet would be to demo all-mountain skis from different brands in a 178-180cm until you find one you like.
If your looking for recommendations on carver skis.....
you should have taken the blue pill."Shredding the Gnar Like the Cowboys We Are"
www.alaskaheliskiing.com
-
11-12-2008, 07:00 PM #9Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Squamish BC.
- Posts
- 707
The Volkl Mantra was a good suggestion for the type of skier you described yourself as. I have a friend who skis it in a 191 and is your height and just a little heavier, not that great a skier, and he has no problems. They are a more mellow ride than the Legend Pro. You could do a 184 if you want to go a little shorter, but nothing shorter than that or you will sink. The Legend Pros come in a 184 this year as well, and I understand that they have mellowed them out a little from previous years, but in the past they were more of a hard charging, stiffer ski that didn't really perform their best until you pushed them a bit. The Mythic Rider, which is the old Legend 8800, might be a better choice, more in line with the likes of the Mantra.
Last edited by Wetdog; 11-12-2008 at 07:04 PM.
-
11-12-2008, 07:35 PM #10
+1 on the 184 LP if you want a dynastar. It's softened up a bit from the older, stiffer 186. If you used to ski 100+ days/year, though, you also probably used to ski 200+ cm skis. I doubt at your size and with your experience you'd have trouble turning something in the 180's. I'm a bit shorter and lighter than kidwoo and ski the 176 LP. It turns incredibly easy but at my size doesn't give up too much of the stability of the 186.
The 166 LP wouldn't be enough ski for me, and I don't ski nearly as hard as a lot of people around here. At your size, I don't think a 176 would be nearly enough ski. You may like it at first, but you'd regret not going longer if you're skiing with the racers in your family. Bear in mind that length + width both factor into the amount of float you get in deep snow. So the 166 would leave you wanting in that department, too. You can always get out the six stars on the days you're just going to ski on trail.
-
11-12-2008, 07:37 PM #11
I'll chime in. I'm older than you by three years, and lighter than you by 55 lbs.
I have a pair of the mythic riders in a 178. It's actually a pretty stiff ski, but with more side cut by a long shot than the LP. Good in crud, okay in pow (though too much side cut really) and very respectable in hard pack.
I had the mantra in a 184 and did not like it- too soft and too much sidecut. But many people love it.
A short LP would be an odd choice I think- it's not a short radius ski, so you're going short in length to make it turny? You'd be better off going with a fattish ski (for off-piste float) but more side cut OR less stiff OR both (if you want turny.) There are lots of skis out there that fit those bills. Old gotamas, prophet 100's, etc. Buying a straight, stiff ski but then going short to make it turny- maybe not the wisest move.
And btw, sorry you got pummelled in your first post over there on ski/snowboard forum before you moved it here. People coulda just told you to move it, never mind the carrying on about short skis. Plenty of internet bullies here- small, goofy kids who got beat up when they were little and try to make up for it by acting all tough-like on the computer. Kind of pathetic, but its worth tolerating for the goodness that is here on TGR.Last edited by srsosbso; 11-12-2008 at 07:40 PM.
-
11-12-2008, 10:28 PM #12
If you're going shorter, I would agree that the Mythic Rider might be a better choice. A straight ski has less contact length on edge, which will work well with a long ski but stability in turns will suffer on shorter skis.
But I'm thinking a ski in the 160s is very short. All of the skis in question are designed for softer snow and, as such, are intended to be skied in longer lengths for more plowing ability and fore-aft stability in the rough stuff. One of these skis in the mid to upper 170s would be plenty easy to throw around. In the 180s, you may find them to be a bit less maneuverable than you're looking for but still manageable and much better at speed.
If you want to ride a ski in the 160s, I recommend a more precise, carving-oriented ski with a narrower waist and more sidecut.
-
11-13-2008, 01:24 AM #13
If you want a short ski for freeriding, have a look at icelantic, either at their site www.icelanticboards.com or do a search here. They are meant to be skied in short lengths, and designed with that in mind.
simen@downskis.com DOWN SKIS
-
11-13-2008, 06:02 AM #14
Have a look at something like the head monster im88's or whatever the most recent version of them is now called. Sounds like you want more of an all mountain ski than a freeride ski. If your a good skier I dont see why you need or would want a short ski.
-
11-13-2008, 09:54 AM #15Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Posts
- 49
47 yo 5'10" 185# old guy here. Used to teach, coach, bla bla.
Been skiing 176 LP's for a couple of years now. Incredible ski, really. Found myself looking for a little more stability at speed, so I tried the 186 last season. HUGE difference. Loved the ski, but nothing happened with those at lower speeds, which in resort skiing is important to me.
I'm going to try out this year's 184 with this in mind. Many will dis this ski as not being a "true" LP, but in fact it might be a good compromise for old guys like me who have been told by their doctor "no more cliffs, drop offs, big hits, or concussions."
-
11-13-2008, 10:23 AM #16
-
11-13-2008, 10:50 AM #17
Cool- any chance of you comparing these to, well, anything else? I've been considering 176 LP's, 183 gotamas, 180 King Salmons, and 180 Moment Tahoes as a powder day resort/side-country ski (mounted with Barons.) I've got lots of good input from people on these skis, but I'd be interested in your thoughts- I'm in the same demographic age wise (though you've got 20-25 lbs. on me.) I've already got mythic riders and ax4's for crud/hardpack.
-
11-13-2008, 10:56 AM #18Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Posts
- 49
I've only been on some Mantra's and some Mythic's that are in the same ballpark.
Don't know that I'd call the LP's a "powder" ski but for me they do just about everything unbelievably well. The only shortfall that I can say that the 176 LP had for me occurred at very high speeds, but that's the tradeoff. Change up to that 186 and that problem goes away at the expense of some slower speed handling. Stiffer ski, no way around it.
-
11-15-2008, 07:50 PM #19
I would stay away from the 166, like said earlier, you are loosing some of the advantages of the ski at this length for your height/weight/ability.
If you are interested in a shorter length the 08 LP 176 has been popping up on tramdock.com for pretty cheap (i think like 350-400ish).
Bookmarks