Thread: 186 Lhasa Carbon vs 190 Katana

Hey there!

Lotsa reviews of each ski everywhere but I have never seen any direct comparison.
Has anybody had a chance to ski both? Please, share your thoughts.

Cheers

if you can afford lhasas, this is a no brainer.

why? Have you skied both? How do they compare in the following departments: powder, soft/hard crud, trees, open terrain/longer turns?
Any first hand, honest info is highly appreciated.

sorry, i dont have any first hand info. i just picked up some 196 lhasas, havent skied em yet, obv. read some of the reviews on the lhasas in this thread: [ame="http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104129"]the New ski reviews links thread[/ame]

there are a couple reviews about older katanas too.

also, why did you settle on these two skis? are you thinking about any others?

Originally Posted by dynodonkeyaltabird

if you can afford lhasas, this is a no brainer.

What he said, mostly. I own the carbon Lhasa, have skied the Kat once, so not really balanced comparo. That said, Kat's a nice ski, smooth, demolishes heavy cut up better than the Lhasa, a touch more stable at speed. Otherwise all Lhasa: Quicker in transition, more energy, lighter, front lifts and cuts through crust better, tail is more versatile, you get the idea. I can think of other skis that might compete with the Lhasa, but I'd pick it for powder over the Katana every time.

Thanks for your thoughts, guys!
So, Lhasas are better in powder, crust while the Katana is better in crud and at warp speed, right?

It's not the ski that skis. You do.

The Lhasa is a carbon fiber layup with a shape mimicked in the S7. Completely different flex, geometry and weight than the Katana.

Besides the specs, would you rather support a Mag company or a Big China producer?

Originally Posted by khyber.pass

It's not the ski that skis. You do.

The Lhasa is a carbon fiber layup with a shape mimicked in the S7. Completely different flex, geometry and weight than the Katana.

Besides the specs, would you rather support a Mag company or a Big China producer?

?Beside the specs?

I'm a big fan of PMGear as well, but peeps have to pick a ski that they feel is best for them. If Bro's weren't exactly the ski I was looking for, i wouldn't of bought 'em. Everybody has different needs in and perception of a ski's performance. Asking for a direct comparison is a pretty valid question, imho...

Demo'ed 186 carbon 3 days in Jackson (thanks Super Gaper) and own a 07/08 183 Katana.

Have you skied a pintail ski design before?
Katana has more sidecut (non-pintail design) than the Lhasa.
Katana tail is almost 20 mm wider than waist, while the Lhasa is 10 mm wider than the waist (I think).

So if you ski in a more traditional sense, work the ski from tip to tail throughout the turn, you "may" feel more comfortable on the Katana.

With the Lhasa and similarly shaped Lotus 120, I find that I ride in a more centered stance on the ski and my skiing is more of a slarve, unless I'm in big terrain and I can make big turns.

Lhasa was a lot fun in open terrain and big turns, Katana as well, but Lhasa surfs a bit better in the pow (maybe due to a bit more surface area and tip rocker of the Lhasa).

My pair of Katanas doesn't have the slight tip rocker that a lot of other people report having.

Trees are fun with both. I think the 190 would be less maneurable than the 186 Lhasa in the trees. I find my 183 Katana and Lhasa pow were similary maneuverable in trees.

Hardpack for me is more fun on the Katana as I like having the sidecut in the tail (less pintail) to rocket out of turns (but maybe I'm just a tailgunning fool).

I'm still in my pintail infancy though (3 days demoing on the Lhasas, and 2 days cat skiing on 190 Lotus 120).

2 days cat skiing on 190 Lotus 120

whorehey where did you catski on the 120's? How did you like them and what were the conditions like? How do the 120's compare to the Lhasa's?

Thanks for the good comparo.

Originally Posted by justAskier

whorehey where did you catski on the 120's? How did you like them and what were the conditions like? How do the 120's compare to the Lhasa's?

Thanks for the good comparo.

I cat-skied in El Arpa in Chile a month ago, which is high alpine, wide open terrain.
Conditions were perfect. 6" fresh, perfectly consistent, hero snow.
Any ski would have been great in those conditions.

I did dig the Lotus 120. They surfed that snow at super high speeds (for me) and felt quite stable.

I'm 5'8" (175 cm) and 170 lbs (75 kg).

It's hard for me to compare the Lotus 120's to the Lhasa's.
I will say they ski similarly for me, centered stance (shapewise).

Some pics of terrain at El Arpa...
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...158774&page=30

Thanks. The terrain and snow look schweeeeeet as do your Loti.

120s and lhasas have very similar shape. both skis have tapered tip and tail and have the pintail shape.

-196 lhasa and the 200 120 are about the same length, only the tip of the 120s is a little more elongated.

-the widest part at the tip is at the same point on both skis and is the same width(140mm), and the tails look almost identical(lhasas are slightly skinnier).

-the 120s have about ~35cm rocker and no camber and little sidecut.

-lhasas have prob 20cm rocker or less with some camber underfoot(2mm) and quite a bit more sidecut than the 120s(120 waist vs 112).

-both skis fucking rock. i was very stoked to see how similar the lhasas were to the 120s as i absolutely loved the 120s.

i would guess that the 186 lhasa and the 190 120 would exhibit the same similarities. i can post some pics comparing the two when i find my camera cord, although i might do that in a new thread...

Originally Posted by Tye 1on

?Beside the specs?

OK, I forgot it's Fall, which means we must be serious on the board now.

Besides all the great comparisons discussed above, which is all about the geometry, I'd say the most significant design difference is the carbon. A carbon ski will retain its shape much longer, and will be lighter (no, I don't have the numbers on hand). A carbon Lhasa will be better suited to slackcountry than a Katana for reasons of weight alone (if one likes hauling big planks out past the boundary).

But I think what I said above holds also -- if a lot of skis are beginning to ride similar, in terms of slarves & powder excellence, picking a company that you want to support becomes all the more important. I haven't ridden the new Katana, but if they've added some rocker, it's going to be in the ballpark of a whole wack of skis: the S7, the EHP, the Bent Chetler, the Lhasa, the Lotus, the Praxis Pow, the Prior Overlord, the Katana, the Gotama, the Pistol, and on & on & on. We are living in a truly epic time of design, frankly.

If you can afford Lhasa Carbons, you may as well spend $60 extra and have Folsom build you a pair of custom skis exactly like you want. Not sure how long the sale lasts though, no connection to them or anyone else.

Originally Posted by Treepinner

If you can afford Lhasa Carbons, you may as well spend $60 extra and have Folsom build you a pair of custom skis exactly like you want. Not sure how long the sale lasts though, no connection to them or anyone else.

Not exactly custom from Folsom. You still have to pick from existing core shapes. But flex and rocker/camber profiles, I think yes. Fully custom runs $1400 I believe. And sounds like construction is very similar to DPS/BRO with the carbon/glass layups. I'm tempted to pull the trigger on the Gambits.

Originally Posted by robnow

Not exactly custom from Folsom. You still have to pick from existing core shapes.

This August got curious, emailed Folsom with some specific questions. Here is what Jordan Grano, the founder, replied to me the (gasp) next day:

"To answer your questions:
1) We use unidirectional carbon plates in 3" and 1.5" widths that are laminated individually for each ski depending on what the customer needs. The length, placement and amount varies with each ski.
2) We do use rubber foil in specific harmonic locations to eat up vibrations, but a creating a damp ski is accomplished though many factors going right down to how we construct our cores. It all about forcing vibrations to travel through materials of varying densities. We construct each ski with a unified effort towards the appropriate damping.
3) We can build anything with rocker and early rise. When someone fills out a skier profile we will discuss their unique needs and come up with a camber/rocker profile for each person.
4)Yes we have full in house graphic capabilities and even designers to help you create one if needed. We can also make changes to the graphics on the site (different colors, adding an element, etc.....)
5)Absolutely! Varying the flex pattern for each person is what makes each ski truly custom. Its at the heart of what we do, which is make a ski shape perform uniquely for each skier. We do not mill a flex pattern into our cores until we know who we are building for."

The current site has some new shapes and rocker designs. So not clear if they can create an unique shape from scratch for you (suspect yes), but either way lot to choose from. Finally, at least in August, they were selling skis for a lot less than $1400; several were around 1K. May be back up now.

What is with everyone need to have a direct comparison between every ski on the market?? Seriously, you even said for yourself "there are lots of reviews on both skis" why do they need to be directly compared for your small brain to understand what ski to buy. If they are both reviewed isnt that enough for you to make a decison???

Because you can find a review of say Mantra where the reviewer states : "it is impossible to submarine the tip and the ski surfs effortlessly on top of everything". The clue is that the previous powder ski for the guys was 107-71-97 and 162 tip to tail or something like this.

this is still a no brainer. GET THE LHASAS.

Actually, I already have a pair of 186 Carbon Lhasa's. Just interested in your opinions. -)