Review: Dynastar Legend 105

[Meathelmet]

Going to pull the trigger on a pair of these this off season. Can't decide on if I should get the 184 or 192. I had 187 XXLs for a couple seasons and felt the length and flex was perfect, had no desire to step up to the 194 especially on the EC. Now that there's some tip rocker the 192s might be fine. Was anyone else torn between sizes?

I'm 5'9 170

Well, there is no tip rocker... Not in the traditional sense. Some splay, yes, but rocker..no.
I am about same height, a bit lighter but would never want the 194 version. Ok, maybe I would skiing big alaskan faces mach schnell all the time, then yes.
The 184 is burly enough.

[Valyo]

Has anyone gone + on the mounting points on these? Just got the 192 version, the mount indicator is 83cm from the tail and still... a lot of tip. I know that's the Legend way, I've skied the old Pro Riders, but still even compared to my EHP 193 which also has a lot of tip, the LP 105 looks massive from the mount to the tip. Would like to be able to squeeze some 3's and backflips on these skis so I was wondering: +1cm or +2cm even?

[arild]

I quite like mine at 81 or 82cm from the tail, but I never ever rotate and stuff, and I suspect they´d be easier to drive at 84cm, thus wouldn´t hurt much. I do plan to detune a bit of the tails, a couple of centimeters into the sidecut, to get them looser. It´s going to be a while before I ski them, but I´ll report back if this makes them more fun and not shitty going mach hell.

[TAFKALVS]

Just got a pair of these, damn they are awesome. 2.25 days on them so far and after some slight adjustment they are freaking awesome. So stable and damp. Not overly demanding either, just need some speed.

Anybody get a chance to fondle these? http://www.evo.com/skis/dynastar-pro-rider.aspx

Same ski or any changes? Think I'm going to grab a backup pair in case I hit some rocks or something with these ones.

[gwat]

From what I understand it is the same ski, new topsheet.

[TAFKALVS]

From what I understand it is the same ski, new topsheet.

Still the wood sidewall?

LP105 with a hair more rocker would make an awesome ski all time, too bad all of Dynastar's energy has been going into the Chams. (Not to say I don't like the Cham series, I really do.)

[comish]

I'm bumping this blast from the past thread.

Question:

Is this year's M-Pro 105 or whatever they are calling it, the same basic ski as the LP105 from back in 2011? The AD version in Yurp that was sold in the midget 184cm size, was it the same as the 2011 version sold here? Sure looks pretty similar. Same sidecut from what I can see. Trying to understand the progression of this ski over the years.

Thanks!

[nickwm21]

I'm bumping this blast from the past thread.

Question:

Is this year's M-Pro 105 or whatever they are calling it, the same basic ski as the LP105 from back in 2011? The AD version in Yurp that was sold in the midget 184cm size, was it the same as the 2011 version sold here? Sure looks pretty similar. Same sidecut from what I can see. Trying to understand the progression of this ski over the years.

Thanks!

Yes. Read this thread. Start with Leavenworth’s first post.

The Dynastar Thread
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/top...ink_source=app

All the Legend Pro’s / ProRiders, LP, XXLs have the same chassis / DNA (longer sidecut, 2 sheets of metal, damp, heavy, yet not uberstiff planks) just varying size in width and length.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ZomblibulaX]

I'm bumping this blast from the past thread.

Question:

Is this year's M-Pro 105 or whatever they are calling it, the same basic ski as the LP105 from back in 2011? The AD version in Yurp that was sold in the midget 184cm size, was it the same as the 2011 version sold here? Sure looks pretty similar. Same sidecut from what I can see. Trying to understand the progression of this ski over the years.

Thanks!

Exact same ski, but the sidewalls went from wood to ABS. I’ve got the 2011 orange dreamsicle and the 2020 leg/end version, same flex, mount point, topsheet texture, same ski. The first year they came in a 176 as well, now just grown up size.

If it ain’t broke...

[TAFKALVS]

10 years later, it still rips.

[waxoff]

How did they feel weight wise? Would they be ok for touring, or would they be a bit heavy?

They're not too heavy, ok for shorter backcountry days, but a bit too much for longer tours.

This Q&A made me smile! I'm imagining the Q refers to Dukes or Barons as well(?).

Guess the view on weight for touring has changed over the years... or have we become lazy and weak?

[TAFKALVS]

I'm pretty sure the lp105 is the heaviest ski on the market right now, outside maybe super g or downhill race skis with a plate. Well maybe something like a super goat, but even then I'm not sure. I think it was pretty average 10 years ago? Could be wrong, but they are tanks.

[waxoff]

Tanks fer sure, but slick tanks! Tanks for touring, nahh, I pass.

In those days, I did some short laps on Sultan 94 with Barons and 1st gen Cochise 120. Peewww, that sure took some effort uphill. Swapped the Barons for Vertical 12, which made it survivable but not much more.

LP105 though, to bring the thread back, such a lovely ski! I love how it can be so freight train stable and yet so easy to push into tighter carves.

[ZomblibulaX]

I stand my my belief that it may well be the best ski Dynastar has ever made.

[gwat]

^yes.

Got my hands on these recently (for when I need a break from the 192s). Winter can't come soon enough!

[comish]

^yes.

Got my hands on these recently (for when I need a break from the 192s). Winter can't come soon enough!

Me Jealous! I need a midget pair.

[ZomblibulaX]

^yes.

Got my hands on these recently (for when I need a break from the 192s). Winter can't come soon enough!

Coward.