the 179 Lhasa: Sickest ski ever!!!

[clarnitty]

Forget any other company that says they make a women's ski. This IS the ski for hard-charging women. It's a 179 (so no bitching about the 186 lhasa being tooooooo long!) and it's the same stiffness underfoot as the 186 makes which makes it HANDS DOWN the most versatile ski on the mountain. This combined with the rockered tip has performed on all conditions: so far I've skied it in 30" of deep Utah pow, rime ice at 12,000 feet, wind buff, corn, and pretty much any other condition you can think of and it has not ONCE faltered, wavered or started shaking a small clenched fist in protest of any sort of chunder---- what could possibly make this ski any better? It has a SheJumps.org top sheet designed by Lynsey Dyer (nekkid pics only if you donate to SheJumps). Thanks SPLAT for making this dream come true. I hope more women realize this IS THE SKI TO TAKE IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL!!!! (btw, I ski on the 186's as well and I am so stoked I can charge JUST AS HARD on this ski without the extra length! (Sorry I can't figure out how to rotate that single photo...I can't believe I can speak 4 languages but can't figure out the freakin' photo program on these forums!! total JONG!!)

Gratuitious Hot Dog skiing photo!!!

[splat]

Hey, Claire, thanks for the props. Really great to collaborate with you She Jumps ladies. I posted your thumbnails bigger (way too big in some instances) for you and will adjust those and get your rotated shot up for you. The new upload feature can be cornfusing. I also had to yank this off the front page cause its a tech talk thread and the s/s forum is (supposed to be) for stoke only, so we'd need them nekkid shots or some more ski shots to hang there.

[clarnitty]

doh! my true JONG form coming out in full force. It's puking (again) here, so ski shots to come!!

[fk]

Sweet! Demoing this weekend and looking forward to it. I'm currently on 174 Czars - any insight into how you think they compare?

[wickstad]

Sweet! Demoing this weekend and looking forward to it. I'm currently on 174 Czars - any insight into how you think they compare?

Maybe you can let us know. I have one recommendation that I get some czars and another friend who is crazy for his Lhasas albeit the 191. Which I think is a little different from the 186 and 179.

[splat]

It is designed somewhat differently yet very much like both of them. It's supposed to exhibit performance characteristics inbetween the 186 and 191, but someone else will have to see if that's the case. I don't review our skis, I just ski them. But everyone who has skied the 179 has said that's how they perform.

[swissbro]

My wife has a pair of 179s. For the last two years she skied the 164 Euro Bros. After one day of skiing them in spring conditions with good corn snow, she thinks it is the best ski she has ever used. She thought they were going to be too long for her, but that hasn't been the case. From my perspective I've never seen her ski faster or with more confidence on anything in the past 20 years.

Interesting side cut too. The narrowest part of the ski is about 30 cm behind the boot center line.

Swissbro's Wife:

I felt like Archimedes or Newton in that "aha" moment! They are 'comfortable' and provide a powerful, confident ride. Many thanks for your design and engineering efforts.

[splat]

Some specs on the 179 Lhasa...

I just measured them at 132/112/114, 75mm tip height, 10.5 inches of splay, 10mm tail height and 3 lbs, 12 oz per ski.
We originally had considered a 117 tail, but backed it off a few mm to keep with a somewhat pintail shape.

edit: fk demo'd them at Alpine Meadows yesterday. He said they were more lively, not as damp as he czars. What else, fk?

[fk]

As Splat said, I demoed these yesterday at Alpine for an hour or so

Me: 5'5, 135lbs, male, Tahoe skier, ok skier - nothing special, huck up to 15-20 ft
Skis: I've liked: Czars, Sidestash
Skis I've disliked: CRJ (kept going over the handle bars, kinda noodly), EHPs (I don't ski enough big lines for this ski, and am not strong enough of a skier to throw it around for everyday use)
Conditions: Soft groomers, corn, crud, and 6 inches or so of fresh in some spots

Overall, these skis are super light, are solid and confidence inspiring, and have tons of energy (probably due to the carbon fiber?). It took me a few runs to really get them dialed - as soon as you get in the backseat the skis let you know, and you have to be deliberate in terms of what type of turn you're making and how you want to engage the tail. After I got used to those two things I really liked this ski. (sidenote: I don't have much experience on a lot of different types of skis and didn't really understand what it felt like to have tails engaged or not - these skis make that feeling very obvious)

On groomers: These things rail big GS turns, and are pretty nimble for a ski this size. I felt very comfortable on groomers. I didn't find a speed limit.

On crud: They bust through crud. These skis have tons of energy though, and you can definitely feel the ride. It's not deflection or a soft ride, just very springy if that makes any sense. I felt super confident pushing it with speed over the crud.

Powder: Didn't get to ride in much pow, but they felt great where I did. What you'd expect from a 112mm underfoot, slightly rockered ski.

Compared to the 174 Czar: They were much lighter than the 174 Czar, and also ski like a bigger, longer ski. They were similar in maneuverability due to these two offsetting factors, both are pretty easy to throw around in trees and tight spaces. They both bust through crud, but the Czars are more damp while you really feel the bumps on the Llasas. On groomers, the Llasas were quicker edge to edge. I haven't been able to comprehensively test this, but the Llasas should float better in pow (kinda obvious since they're bigger underfoot and up front). Comes down to preference at the end of the day - if you like a damp ride go with the Czars, if you love the energy of carbon fiber and like to feel everything you're riding over, go with the Llasas.

[wickstad]

Some specs on the 179 Lhasa...

I just measured them at 132/112/114, 75mm tip height, 10.5 inches of splay, 10mm tail height and 3 lbs, 12 oz per ski.
We originally had considered a 117 tail, but backed it off a few mm to keep with a somewhat pintail shape.

edit: fk demo'd them at Alpine Meadows yesterday. He said they were more lively, not as damp as he czars. What else, fk?

What does "10.5 inches of splay" mean?

[splat]

Early rise distance from base/edge contact point to the end of the tip.

[Shorty_J]

What does "10.5 inches of splay" mean?

That's what she said. It's all about the 0.5.

[splat]

That's what she said. It's all about the 0.5.

You gotta splay if you wanna play.

[Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer]

Just don't drop these from the roof in Chile Hope all is well Clarnity - she rips!