Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread: Scott P4 191 Review
12-17-2008, 06:02 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- avon, co
Scott P4 191 Review
I Have been on 191 p4's so far this season at Beaver Creek/Vail, about 10 days so far. Mounted -1 from ^ on sidewall. I am 5 10, 185 and ski black diamonds.
Skied today at BC in 11 inches of fresh after a storm cycle has been pounding consistently for about 5 days now. Skied mostly knee deep fresh and soft bumps. Skied a few hard pack days as well.
Previous/Current skis owned and liked: 186 LP's (fav of all time), 188 Volk G4, 184 Stockli Stormrider, 185 Pocket Rocket, 182 Dynastar Intuitiv 74.
I have to say that I am extremely impressed with these skis. At first I was skeptical with the rear mount, but they are perfect. I just had to get aggressive with the bevel to get the ski away from my body on hard snow. The edge tune makes a huge difference on a wide medium-soft ski.
Powder: A- These ski extremely well in pow considering a 108 mm waist as this is on the narrow side these days. Great float, just not exceptional on top of the snow smear type of float, much better than say a 186 LP. I think the 105-110 mm mark seems to be ideal for resort pow skiing as the versatility is still high.
Crud: B+ Very good crud ski, notch below an LP/squad. For an even flexed medium-soft ski, I think they ski crud better than one would assume. Very good stability and confidence inspiring busting crud at cheek flapping speed.
Manueverability: A For a 191 cm ski, they turn on a dime. Very, Very easy to ski. The effective edge is probably more like a 183-186 guessing. Skis slightly shorter than 186 LP. Easy to toss around in tight spots. Don't fear the 191. I imagine the 181's are way to short unless you are under 150 lbs maybe.
Groomers: B- Much better than some would suggest. At firt I was running 1 degree 1 degree. Hooked up way to early and therefore I couldn't seem to fully bend the ski. Went to 1 and 3, and ski hooks up after substantial angulation allowing to fully engage from tip-tail. Hooks up and pulls across the fall line hard. Nice medium to long radius turns.
Overall I am extremely satisfied. I was looking for a pow ski for resort days that performed better than LP in fresh snow, and they do by a good margin. Some overlap, but they still fit in the quiver nicely. My favorite is still LP for second to none stability and the ability to ski crud with fierce aggression as this is so common on resort pow days as fresh gets tracked quickly. For a great deal on tramdock for about 350, I am impressed. Even If I had to pay retail I would be stoked. Highly recommended as a go to everyday ski with a genuine skill towards softer snow.
Last edited by Townicus; 12-28-2010 at 01:15 AM.
12-17-2008, 06:12 PM #2
I think that your review is spot-on. I'm 1" shorter, 10lbs lighter, and ski the 181cm P4s mounted at 3.5cm back from boot center "^" mark on the sidewall. They definitely ski short but I've been super happy with the length I chose as they are incredibly versatile. According to Endre's ski flex test, they are actually stiffer (mainly in the center of the ski) than Mantras and other fats. I can't wait to ski mine this season!
Last edited by critical-motion; 12-17-2008 at 08:59 PM.
12-17-2008, 06:32 PM #3
Still haven't gotten my 191s mounted, and I still don't know what to do.
You guys say 4cm back from boot center; tromano says 1cm in front. I'm almost ready to put plates on the damned things to ensure that I can move fore and aft without redrilling.41 days 2012-13
12-17-2008, 06:45 PM #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- avon, co
Here is what happened with my mount:
I wanted them mounted -1 from the mark on the sidewall(^). When I checked his work afterward, they were indeed -1 from^ mark, not thesticker (use the sidewall mark). I wasn't worried that there was too much tip, but not enough tail. Turns out I absolutely love the mount, wouldn't change a thing. I bet the line or anywhere close to it is money also. If I were less aggressive, and was really concerned about hard bump performance for example, I would probably move them up. But that isn't me. Hope that helps (BTW, use the ^, don't use the sticker as the accuracy is bush league.)
Last edited by Townicus; 12-28-2010 at 01:20 AM.
12-17-2008, 09:03 PM #5
I should add that I originally skied mine at -1.5 from the "^" mark and they had way too much tip. The boot center line is definitely more for jibby-type skiing and I ended up moving the toe piece back 2cm. For comparison, the boot center on a 179cm Line Prophet 100 is approximately 2cm farther back and 179cm K2 Seth Vicious 5cm back from that on the P4.
12-17-2008, 09:07 PM #6
Thanks for the tip re the sidewall mount point.
These are mainly going to be my patrol skis for soft snow days. (Patrol strongly discourages reverse sidecut due to lack of effective edge on the inevitable groomer.) I tend to make longer rather than shorter turns, skiing relatively but not insanely fast.41 days 2012-13
12-17-2008, 09:56 PM #7
Nice review. I also picked up some SAC 191's, and have a few days on them so far. I'm shorter (5'8" ish) and lighter (150ish), and these skis are barrels o' fun. Haven't really had the chance to try a variety of conditions yet, but so far the above review seems pretty spot on. I would've given them a higher mark on groomers, but I've never raced and don't spend much time on groomers, so my definition of a good groomer ski is probably a bit off.
I mounted at -1.5 from the ^, and so far it seems good. At first I was thinking it might be a bit too far forward, but so far tip dive hasn't been an issue (been in heavier snow though), and I think that mount position will make them a bit easier in tight spots. If I were much bigger, I think that a slightly more rearward mount would be better.
12-23-2008, 07:34 PM #8
Skied my 181cm's in 20-40" of fresh, relatively light and untouched powder. They definitely have a tendency to sink a little in low-angle powder unless I'm going mach-looney. However, they were perfect in runs through tight trees and off drops under 10'. I was also very impressed with their performance on groomers. Once I adjusted my stance for their width, I was able to carve some nice, high-speed trenches down fresh corduroy. Although not awesome on ice, they do better than expected and feel really solid and stable in firm snow. I think that these will be my go-to skis if there is over 8" of powder.
My main criticisms are the forward mounting position and rather enormous amount of lift of the tails. I'd rather have a little more running length than the ability to land switch in powder.
Last edited by critical-motion; 12-23-2008 at 07:37 PM.
12-23-2008, 08:04 PM #9Powder: A- These ski extremely well in pow considering a 108 mm waist as this is on the narrow side these days.
12-23-2008, 09:59 PM #10
Had my 181 P4s in 18-24" of super light blower at Kirkwood today. Mounted -1CM from recommended. Me = 6'2" 155lbs. On Saturday, in untracked heavier snow, they slayed, no tip dive whatsoever, charged em hard, felt AWESOME. Today, the snow was much lighter, and I did have issues keeping the tips up on low angle stuff. Steeps weren't an issue, but traverse run-outs and low angle hills required me to backseat it.
Last edited by thefrush; 12-23-2008 at 10:02 PM.((. "The joy I get from skiing...
.)) That's worth dying for."
.)) -CR Johnson
12-24-2008, 02:02 PM #11
i've got a pair of 91's but haven't mounted them yet. I know there's a thread on here somewhere with comments on these being "squirrely" when mounted on the mark. I'll likely mount mine back anyway, and check back in after I've got something to add."When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole
one and prayed for forgiveness." Emo Phillips
12-24-2008, 03:02 PM #12
Last edited by tromano; 12-24-2008 at 03:08 PM.
12-29-2008, 02:13 PM #13
^^^^^^^^^ I'm going to add the links from tromano's previous posts - good info there
I agonized over where to mount my 191s for a long time, and scoured all of the old threads for some experiences/insight. Tromano provided a ton of info both here and on Epic, and AFAIK is the only person on both forums to have skied them at -1.5, 0, and +1. To sum up his findings, he could've lived with any of those mounting positions (and have accepted the obvious compromises), but preferred the 0 mount because it (in his opinion) provided the best balance between powder and typical resort skiing.
I got pretty geeky too. I measured the running length, and found the center of the sidecut / waist. Using the old school ball of foot over the midway point on the running length method put the midsole mark on my 315 bsl boot at about +0.5 So if you ignore the turned up part of the tails, the mounting ^ mark isn't actually forward for my bsl.
Another consideration was, what do I want to use these for? I've done considerable "pruning" to the quiver, and am hoping to make this my go-to ski for both sides of the rope.
So based on that, I mounted mine on the ^ line. If I find that the tails get too much lift on deep snow days, I might remount at -1.2ish, but only after some serious snow time.
That said, I can't yet give any sort of review because of a herniated disc that's going to keep me off skis for a few more weeks - but for alpinedad, and anyone still deciding where to mount, it's food for thought anyway.
A few more links -
12-29-2008, 02:46 PM #14
I have 191 P4s mounted tele @ -1cm (tele boot center less ducbill relative to alpine boot center mark). They ski great: playful, carvalicious, and floatzilla. They've become my day to day ski, which was completely unexpected.
12-29-2008, 02:53 PM #15
good in the bumps, nice carved turns on groomers, pretty good pow ski. predictable, stable, forgiving. It's a winner.