Thread: Legend Pro XXL- how they ski

How long does a legend pro ski? Should a person using a 181 axis go with the 176s or the 18(X)s.

Don't know anything about the axis, but 194 xxl is a lot of ski. There's talk of a 186 coming out next year, but I don't if that's happening. I'd love to try a 186 XXL whenever it comes out. Shit, jump on the sweet THA 187 group buy in Gear Swap. I think the dimensions might be fairly similar, and the price is right.

Been talking about this ski a lot lately with a friend of mine. He's got some 186 legend pros (like I do) and bought the 194s last year......mostly skied in comps with shit conditions. He won't shut up about them. I don't know if you've ever skied the pros but they're really good at that whole mach stupid runout over chunder thing. I think of them as railroad tracks bolted to my feet.

He says these are better.

Part of that is I'm sure the length but they're also softer and he claims regardless of the 194 printed on them, he can move them in tight spaces better.

He's got me so convinced that I've been looking for a pair of the biggies for cheap.

He's 140lbs and I'm 160 for what it's worth........so unless you're pretty small, I'd say try at least the 186s. The fact that you're even looking at this ski, indicates you like going fast so.......to an extent......the longer the better

oh right......your original question......I think the pros ski pretty true to the length so I can only assume that's true for the xxls.......just more forgiving.

Originally Posted by Borat

How long does a legend pro ski? Should a person using a 181 axis go with the 176s or the 18(X)s.

An XXL is not an LP, as people have stated. Anyone on a pair of 181 K2 Axis really needs to demo something a heck of a lot stiffer to get a feel and flavor of an LP.

Axis - Wood and fiberglass (no metal) and 70-mm waist = easy to flex
LP - Race lay-up with lots of metal and 97-mm waist = tough to flex even for developed skiers.

Proficient skiers who charge say the LP's are easy to ski. If that is not the kind of skier you are, then look elsewhere...like at a Mantra.

lp xxls are very easy to ski for their size. Everyone is taking the lp's rep and applying it to the xxl. The xxl has a turned up (not twined) tail and is much softer. Easy to ski. Can be carved easily so please do. Nothing pains me more than seeing some "bro brah" on an amazing ski tail gunning the fuck out of it making pivot slips all day because they never learned how to use a skis sidecut.

if anything I'd say the XXLs have a flatter tail than the Pro. either way, the kick isn't big enough to make much of a difference to the running length

Any more word on a 18x size XXL for us pansy's

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

Proficient skiers who charge say the LP's are easy to ski. If that is not the kind of skier you are, then look elsewhere...like at a Mantra.

Id say im a proficient skier, although a newly proficient skier as ive only skied ~100 days over the past two seasons. (my total experience)

I honestly dont know why the LP gets a bad rep. Theyre very easy to ski on the 795mm line on the 186 model at 5'10 170ish. Yea they flex stiff, but the dont always ski that way. In chop, crud, pow, and groomers theyre awesome. Super smooth, easy to load, and a wonderfully damp rebound.
The only time theyre a little harder to handle are in the trees, bumps, and anytime you want to make a lot of turns.

I think the mounting location is almost right as is for general resort skiing for me, however, theyre not as stable as Im used to with other skis as the tail has a bit too much width imo and tends to hook every now and then. Id honestly suggest a mount point 10 to 15 mm back to 780mm from the tail.

Ive never once felt this ski be too much to handle in comparison to the 183 mojo103s I owned.

My only complaints about the 186 LPs, besides the mount point and tail hooking occasionally have to do with the weight and stiffness. Because of the heavy construction, the tips have a tendancy to do a low freq "flop" but it doesnt hurt performance and they also tend to chatter once in a while when I really want to lay a hard edge down on harder snow. If they were a bit soft and lighter and had say a 5mm narrower tail, theyd be perfect.

I ski the 194 LP as my go to everyday ski. I also found the XXL easier to ski, a little softer and a little more forgiving. But still a ripping ski.

Borat:

As far as the LP's go, I would probably go with the 186, its a proven design. There are not a lot of reviews of the 176, but I think it should be a decent ski. I also ski the 8800 in a 178 and its a pretty good all a round ski. So I picked a pair of the 176's anyhow, if I don't like them, I'll make the wife SAC up.

The 194 XXL definitely skis more forgivingly than the old race room LPs. You can point them and they're a real 194 but when you lay them over really hard the huge tip and the softer fore body make it feel dramatically shorter and more nimble than the length/LP rep suggest.

My buddy Ben Wheeler was telling me that Erik Roner was testing out a 187 XXL prototype this past season. Would be interesting Dynastar put it into production.

Borat, I came off skiing the Axis XP in 181 for touring and the 188 for resort. I demoed the Dyna reps mythic rider in 178 and his LP in 176 on a day with slush bumps and both skied great. I'm a big 5'7" and 150lb, and went with the LP 186, which I think skis more like 184ish. IF I did most of my skiing somewhere wide open like Whistler/Squaw, I could see getting the 194 XXL. I sat there with twitching fingers when they were up on SAC but didn't pull the trigger because I didn't see the added width and length being all that useful in the Alpental gnar slack-country.

I love these skis, easy to turn, hold an edge decent enough. They are a bit heavy but surprisingly maneuverable in trees. I've noticed a little softness in the tip/floppiness but not really a problem. My only beef is that these skis are.... a little slow. The bases demand wax.

Originally Posted by pechelman

I honestly dont know why the LP gets a bad rep. Theyre very easy to ski on the 795mm line on the 186 model at 5'10 170ish. Yea they flex stiff, but the dont always ski that way. In chop, crud, pow, and groomers theyre awesome. Super smooth, easy to load, and a wonderfully damp rebound.
The only time theyre a little harder to handle are in the trees, bumps, and anytime you want to make a lot of turns.

Pechelman - I'm with you about the LP's...they are not as bad as one might think, if the skier has some skills.

I was simply trying to point out that the original poster is skiing some version of a K2 Axis (not necessarily an XP might I add) and is asking what length of LP to jump into, clearly never having been on the skis.

I think in that case, there are better approaches to getting into a pair of fat skis, making jumping right to an LP not the best recommendation.

Originally Posted by Altaholic

My buddy Ben Wheeler was telling me that Erik Roner was testing out a 187 XXL prototype this past season. Would be interesting Dynastar put it into production.

name dropper

The XXL is a sweet ski and yes as others have said, a bit softer than the Legend Pro's.

Having fondled a pair of SAC 176cn LP's, I can definitely say they would only be for Mrs. Comish. While I am looking for something a little shorter than the 186cm Race Room LP's, the 176cm is just way too short from looking at them.

I'm pretty sure the 194 XXL's are definitely too big for this kid. Borat, I'm gonna go out on a limb her and suggest that they are prolly too big for you as well, but thats worth about what you paid for it.

Comish. What how big are you. The xxls are not as intimidating as everyone seems to think they are.

I'm 5'9" and around 160ish. Just haven't found a ski >188cm that I would enjoy skiing all over the mtn. Give me AK, the Hobacks, Noids at Mammoth and thats all I was skiing, yep, I would love them. I would also probably want to shoot myself as soon as I got into any trees, chutes, or bumps. Personal preference, but I don't subscribe to the big is best theory and think there is a definite balance in size. I have, if my wimpy memory serves me correctly, actually met Borat, albeit briefly, hence my suggestion.