Matching Lhasa Pow Fats with GPOs...

[Muggydude]

So basically earlier this year I order the GPO in 187, fiberglass with med/stiff layup. I was really on the line between that and 192 carbon (and really close to pulling the trigger on them), but ended up with the 187 because I ski pretty much entirely resort, and wanted a little extra quickness in tight trees.

However, after that I picked up a pair of last years 186 Lhasa Pow Fats for an awesome deal. They are pure carbons, standard flex (I believe). Will also be resort for now- but could very well become my brother's tour skis (or mine) in the future. Now I'm trying to figure out whether I should ask keith to switch me to 192 carbon hybrid GPOs (maybe even 192 fiberglass) to better compliment the Lhasas. I know they are sort of overlapping skis in their purposes, though they achieve it by different designs.

So my questions are: how do the skis compare as chargers? In tight trees? And in general resort skiing (including crud, bumps, groomers, etc). How about drops (up to 20ft)? Should I ask keith to switch my order to 192 carbons (or regular layup)? Or keep them as is?

Thanks!

About me little over 5'9 185 lbs advanced-expert skier. Ski vail, breck, copper, WP, steamboat, etc

[Lindahl]

PM Gear skis in stock flexes tend to be stiffer than Praxis skis in stock flexes. I'd switch to 187 glass (since you're average size, don't send anything huge, and ski mostly CO resorts with bumps and tight trees), and keep the pure carbons for touring. That's about all I can offer.

[Muggydude]

To clarify- currently have 187 glass gpos ordered.

[whyturn]

If it's trees then I would go 187. That's why I sized down. In wide open at alta the 192 just wanted to go and go like the Lhasa fat 191. But in reality I ski a lot of trees and found 187 to be way more manageable. Gave up some float for tree quickness but I have fatter skis for over a foot. Just my 2 cents if forced to decide like I had to

[Muggydude]

Check your inbox, it's full right now

So it sounds like in general the lhasa fat is more nimble than the gpo in the same length. So if I know in going to be doing tight trees I'll probably pull out the 186 fats- and for a more versatile quiver the 192 gpo would make sense for days when I want to charge more, hit bigger lines, or bigger drops. I'd still think the I would want the 192 carbon gpo, full glass in that length might be a bit much at times. I guess the only question is will the 192 carbon gpos do better in the resort crud and charging than the 187 glass gpos?

[whyturn]

GPO will charge more and eat up vert in the 192. Get carbon I think

[Muggydude]

Yeah. I don't know, might stick with the 187 glass. Anyone else care to comment who's skiid both?

any issues in crud with GPO carbon 192?

[nickwm21]

I have 191 lhases and owned 192 carbon gpos.

For being a very similar shape, they ski pretty differently.

The lhasa has almost not camber and very little tail. You need to drive the tips and whip the tails around. It does not carve groomers well. More of a slashy surfy ski. Better in tighter spaces than the gpo.

The gpo has a more centered mount and more camber. It is more of a carver than the lhasa. Better at the wide open full speed stuff. I sold this ski because I could not get along with the carbon layup, to active for me.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using TGR Forums

[splat]

MD - Could you clarify for me the waist on the 186 Lhasas? The standard 186 Lhasa waist is 112, the Fat is 122.
The 186 Lhasa in both versions skis very different than the 191 or the 191 Fat Lhasa - they really are almost apples and oranges in comparison.

[Muggydude]

It's the fat with a 120mm waist. Purple base. No camber under foot. I talked to you about it before, was the one with the sidewall blem- last years model I think

[Lindahl]

Splat, how do they differ?

[splat]

140/116/128 or a 187 GPO. 150/122/130 on a 186 Lhasa Fat.

The difference in how they might ski (haven't skied the GPO) based on dims would be the tails, as well as the shovel radius.
The GPO is sorta like the regular LP 186, which has dims of 140/112/130. But the biggest dif is in the tail.
In pow, cut up and glop that semi-pintail on the LP is going to come around a lot faster and easier, especially in cake.
The bigger dif from shovel to waist will initiate turns a bit easier and quicker, I imagine, especially in pow.
On hard snow, backseat drivers will curse the LP 186 for lack of tail edge hold on piste.
But had the LP 186 been designed for backseaters who don't know how to drive the shovels, we would have put a chair behind the bindings.
It's quite obvious the GPO has a solid tail edge hold but knocking a couple mm off the tail width will help it release a bit easier.
Keep in mind the similarity between the standard 186 Lhasa and the 187 GPO ends in the tails.
Beyond a dims based comparo, Keith, Kevin and I need to go skiing and swap demos.
The 186 Fat is 1 cm fatter all the way around, same sidecut as the regular 186.

[Lindahl]

I meant how do the LP186s and LP191s differ. I agree with your armchair analysis though.

[pfluffenmeister]

^^^ i've skied the LP186 (140-112-120) and the LP191Fat (144-117-125.5).

only put 2 days on the LP186; although i like to drive the tips perhaps i'm "CAPTAIN-TAIL-GUNNER!!!" [/voice over voice], as i found that ski to have almost no edge contact behind the heel on piste.

conversely, i love the LP191Fat (in fact it's replaced 2 skis in my quiver, one skinnier, one a bit fatter); it seems to do everything exceptionally well.
Awesome in pow (duh), crud-buster, great edge hold on groomer (one can carve, and feel the turn run down the edge).

i attribute this difference in feel primarily to the difference in tip/tail delta.
LP186 t/t delta: 20mm
LP191Fat delta: 18.5mm
Lotus120delta: 15mm (another ski that i've skied and loved, even on piste; until i picked up the 191 Fat, now it rules the roost).
trad ski delta: ~10mm

also interested in Splat's input re: lhasa differences.
i've only seen the GPO on someone else's feet, looked like a nice shape.


edit: i know that's only a 1.5mm difference, but the way in which the two skis, well ski, is notably different.

[splat]

The combination of length and added 1.5 mm width to the tail of the 191 Fat makes a big dif.
I'd guess the 191 Fat is closer to the GPO than any of the other Lhasas.
Don't think I haven't considered adding some width to the tail of the 186 because so many people have a hard time with that tail.
But a lot of people love it for the way it performs in anything soft and choose to drive it on the hard too.
With the 186 LP you really feel the tip/shovel and you really don't feel the tail.
The 191 Fat is much closer to the feel of a more conventional ski.
Get on a pair of 196 LPs and that sidecut with the same original dim of 140/112/120 that's on the 186 gets stretched out and is not all that noticeable.

because that original set of dims would in no way work on the 179 Lhasa, that ski got a different shape.

[racesla]

I've had both the glass, and carbon 187 GPOs. For resort, the glass layup all the way. Much damper, and you don't get that buzzy feel from firmer terrain in your legs. Still a lively fun though. For backcountry, or mainly soft snow the carbon is great.

[Muggydude]

140/116/128 or a 187 GPO. 150/122/130 on a 186 Lhasa Fat.

The difference in how they might ski (haven't skied the GPO) based on dims would be the tails, as well as the shovel radius.
The GPO is sorta like the regular LP 186, which has dims of 140/112/130. But the biggest dif is in the tail.
In pow, cut up and glop that semi-pintail on the LP is going to come around a lot faster and easier, especially in cake.
The bigger dif from shovel to waist will initiate turns a bit easier and quicker, I imagine, especially in pow.
On hard snow, backseat drivers will curse the LP 186 for lack of tail edge hold on piste.
But had the LP 186 been designed for backseaters who don't know how to drive the shovels, we would have put a chair behind the bindings.
It's quite obvious the GPO has a solid tail edge hold but knocking a couple mm off the tail width will help it release a bit easier.
Keep in mind the similarity between the standard 186 Lhasa and the 187 GPO ends in the tails.
Beyond a dims based comparo, Keith, Kevin and I need to go skiing and swap demos.
The 186 Fat is 1 cm fatter all the way around, same sidecut as the regular 186.

I'm a bit confused- are you describing the regular Lhasa Pow here (see red)? I'm interested to know about the 186 Pow Fat's skiing characteristics, not the regular.

Did you say GPO is like the regular LP- and then describe the regular LP in an attempt to speculate how the GPO would ski? Just trying to clarify.

[splat]

The 186 Fat is 1 cm fatter all the way around, same sidecut as the regular 186.

Therefore they'll ski the same with more float.
Haven't skied the GPO but it simply has more tail width, as I said.
Sorry if that confused you.

[Muggydude]

Ah, I see now. Makes sense.

I'm going to stick with the 187 glass for resort skiing. Will be interesting to see how it compares to the full carbon lpf- if I find it skis too short I can always sell and go longer, or if either does everything I want I'll sell the other pair. Though hopefully I'll be able to get some tour gear and mount the lhasas up with some dynafiddles, and use those for touring and GPO for inbounds