Results 1 to 25 of 43
Thread: V-works Katana 184 vs 191
-
03-29-2014, 08:36 AM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Central California
- Posts
- 531
V-works Katana 184 vs 191
Is the 191 V-werks Katana as burly as the standard 191 Katana (other than weight)? If so, I'll look at the 184. Anybody tried both? Can't find much on the 191.
-
03-29-2014, 01:09 PM #2
PSA:
If you're looking for a source for the V-Werks Katana 184cm, check out Corbett's ski, near Toronto.
[ EDIT: Corbetts has sold out of their Katanas ]
I bought them in 177.
Me -> 5'9" 175 lbs. I could probably handle them in 184 but erred on the side of short for added maneuverability. As I'm located near Toronto, I'll only get to ski these when on my annual trip out West our Europe
- AndyLast edited by ARL67; 04-04-2014 at 07:00 PM.
-
03-29-2014, 05:42 PM #3Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
- Posts
- 14
I havn't skied the regular Katana but I got a chance to demo the 184 Vwerks. I was really impressed with that ski and if I could afford one I might have picked up a pair.
I'm 6'2" 160 and the 184s felt right.
-
03-29-2014, 10:26 PM #4Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Central California
- Posts
- 531
Thanks for the info. I'll check into Corbetts site. Still hoping to to find a credible review of the 191? My daily driver is a full cambered Mantra. Me 6'1" 210#
Last edited by mntntom; 03-29-2014 at 10:39 PM.
-
03-29-2014, 11:29 PM #5
we have v werks katanas in stock at the shop i work at too, be happy to ship em
give us a call if corbetts runs out, 509-534-4554
-
03-30-2014, 01:21 PM #6Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Posts
- 27
I have skied both sizes and fond the only advantage of the 191 was slightly more stability in a stupid fast straight line(I have the metal katana for that). The 184 was plenty of ski especially with how stiff the carbon tail is, and how far back they are usually mounted. They also made tighter east coast woods a little more reasonable. I am 6-1 180 and an ex-racer.
-
03-30-2014, 02:53 PM #7
Kick turns on a 191 doesn't exactly sound fun.
-
04-02-2014, 08:45 PM #8Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Central California
- Posts
- 531
-
04-02-2014, 09:08 PM #9
-
09-19-2014, 10:29 AM #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
- Posts
- 147
Just wondering if anyone else has spent some time on both 184 and 191?
At 5'11" and 225lbs I'm hesitant to grab the 184... But honestly I'm an intermediate skier who likes trees bowls and steeps depending on conditions. Not a super turny style nor a straight liner either.
Current quiver
Renegades 196
cochise 185
Brahama longest length 187?
head titans 177
yes i have a gear issue... cheaper than drugs.... i think...
-
09-21-2014, 06:53 PM #11
^^^You definitely don't need the 191 IMO. I'm 5'11 and 205, race background, ski fast and aggressive and the 191 is a LOT of ski. The 191 was the first non-race ski that I felt like I had to ski it with race boots.
-
09-21-2014, 08:48 PM #12
-
09-22-2014, 07:32 AM #13Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
- Posts
- 147
V-works Katana 184 vs 191
From what I can gather straight pull is around 189.4 cm.
Thanks that's exactly the info I'm looking for. Don't want to throw down the cash and have a ski I can't use.
Does the 191 require a lot of speed to come alive? Still fun in the trees? Is it very demanding?
Thank you. 191 info is hard to come by!
-
09-22-2014, 01:06 PM #14
IMO the 191 Vwerks Katana is one of the most versatile charging oriented skis in the 110-115 category. It is surprisingly easy to ski, quite light on the feet and, on the other side, relatively damp and confidence inspiring in variable snow conditions. Before I got the Katanas I spent the last season on Cochise, Devastator and Wailer RPC, all in the above 190 cm range. From all those outstanding skis I feel most connected to the Carbo Katanas as a daily driver. I didn't ski the 184 version but in 191 cm the Katana definitively does not feel longish. Given the low weight and carbon construction I rather prefer the additional dampness and stability of the 191 over the better maneuverability of the 184 length.
-
09-22-2014, 02:44 PM #15Rod9301
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Location
- Squaw valley
- Posts
- 4,639
hey rocker, where did you mount your carbon katanas?
I just bought the 184 to mount with dynafits for bc.
they will be my everyday bc ski, powder to steep spring couloirs?
-
09-22-2014, 09:27 PM #16Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- Colorado
- Posts
- 858
-
09-23-2014, 01:42 PM #17
Both the RPC and the Katana are really fantastic skis. They share the quickness, energy and torsional stiffness of a well designed carbon construction. There are, however, some distinctions which made me prefer the one ski over the other.
First of all the dampness. I owned the first gen RPC and own the second gen Pure 3 version. Although Pure 3 is a significant improvement in this regard, the RPCs are still quite far from being damp. I'd consider Cochise as a truly damp ski. Vwerks Katanas are somewhere in between. They're actually damp enough to smooth the ride in shitty snow. Going with the same speed on RPC requires more effort to control the ski.
Second the shape. RPC is heavily tapered and pintailed with a nice tip and tail rocker. This design works really well in soft snow but has some restrictions in firm snow on steep terrain. The Katanas have a tiny taper and almost no splay at tip and tail. The tail is beefy, far away from a pintail. This more traditional shape provides longer effective edge and strong tail support resulting in better predictability on steeps in firm snow.
All in all - I love to shred the mountains on the RPCs if it's soft but if the conditions are varying, which is rather the normality, I stick to the Carbo Katanas. They are a little bit like a bastard of Cochise and RPC.
BTW - Katana mounted @ +2 cm, RPC @ +1 cm
-
11-14-2016, 05:58 PM #18Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Posts
- 6,176
Anyone want to update on the 184/191 comparison after a few seasons?
-
11-14-2016, 11:50 PM #19Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Squamish BC.
- Posts
- 707
I'm wondering the same. I demoed the 184's last spring and was very impressed with them. I thought they would feel too short as I am 6'4" and 190 and most of my big skis are in the 190-195 range. In the mixed spring conditions, soft bumps and groomers they rocked, and I never felt that I was wanting more length, but I did not ski them in deep snow. I bought 184's as they had great clearance prices last spring thinking they would be fine after such a great demo, but now I am second guessing myself wondering if I would like the 191 even more, especially in the deep. I am going to be using it as a 50/50 resort and resort accessed backcountry ski mounted with Kingpins so it still has to deal with mixed resort conditions. I felt the 184 was fine for that. I also think that perhaps the 184 length might be more manageable skinning and skiing the BC. Would love to hear from someone who has toured on the 190.
-
11-15-2016, 12:16 AM #20Rod9301
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Location
- Squaw valley
- Posts
- 4,639
I'm the same weight and the184 floats fine in powder.
It's a pain in the ass in switchbacks on steep firm snow though with the long tails.
-
11-15-2016, 05:42 AM #21Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Posts
- 6,176
Ever feel like the 184 isnt enough?
-
11-15-2016, 06:22 AM #22Rod9301
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Location
- Squaw valley
- Posts
- 4,639
Never, and I go reasonably fast. The ski is damp, great edge hold.
-
01-30-2017, 02:36 AM #23
Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I've searched and searched and this is really the only "legit" comparison thread on the 184 vs. 191 topic. I've got an opportunity to pickup a set of v-werks katana's in either 184 or 191, but I'm having a hard time deciding which length to go with. I'm 6'0" 225lbs. and would consider myself an advanced skier who skis with decent power. I spend most of my time carving on piste and hitting the steeps. I'll hit the powder if it's decently light and not the typical mashed potatoes we get in the Pacific NW. No tree skiing or back country for me. I like the 191 for the obvious stability and added float in powder, but also like the 184 for the better maneuverability. Ugh...this shouldn't be this hard...anyone wanna help me decide?
-
01-30-2017, 03:59 AM #24
I've the 191 as my inbounds/sidecountry rig mounted with kingpins. I'm like 6'1" and 170 lbs. No problem with the length whatsoever. The ski is pretty easy to turn anyway. Just mount it like 2+ because the recommended line is very far back. I never wished to be on a shorter ski, but then again I'm pretty used to ski 190-ish lengths.
-
01-30-2017, 09:45 AM #25
Fellow PNW skier here currently weighing in at 205. I have the 184's and they are very easy to ski. I bought them as a touring rig that coupd handle the resort, so erred in the side of shorter. After a few days on them, if I could do it all over again, I would go 191. They aren't the metal Katana by any means. I'd be afraid you would over ski the 184 @ 225-lbs.
In constant pursuit of the perfect slarve...
Bookmarks