Review: Dynastar Legend 105

[MotoBeak]

Me
6', 175 lbs
I like fast and open terrain, throwing in the occasional billy goat line. I ski a lot at Loveland, A-Basin, and the rest of the I-70 areas. Not a big hucker, competed in a few big mtn comps.
Current quiver: 191 Lhasa, 184 Legend 115, 186 Phantom 97, 198 Phantom RC112, 196Praxis Protests, Spatulas
Past skis I've liked: 187 XXL, 190 Nordica W105, 184 Stockli DP, 185 Machete FB

I spent a day on th 192 Legend 105 at A-Basin, and came away very impressed. I would say that this is the best resort ski ever. The conditions were firm and grippy wind packed snow with a few soft spots in the trees and on the east wall. The early rise tip isn't noticeable on hard snow, but does a good job keeping the tip out of trouble in the soft and variable. The ski doesn't hand flex very stiff, but it's real solid on snow with great edge grip. I liked the ski really well at boot center on the factory line, but it was even better when I adjusted to -1cm. Easily as stable as the XXL, and not too far off the RC112. When I'm really hauling on the 112 I feel like I can change direction when I have to, but the 105 was real easy to manage going stupid fast. I was going a lot faster than I could on the XXLs or Legend 115, because the 105 is just more willing to change direction or do whatever you want. It's equally comfortable carving a solid turn or sliding/slarving however you like. Very smooth and damp on crud, but not dead feeling like a Volant. It was even well behaved in the moguls. This would be a great comp ski. This will definitely take the place of my Legend 115 and Phantom 97, and I'll spend fewer days on the RC112. And I almost forgot, the 192 will kill it in east coast trees!

[IvanLipko]

Any pics of the ski's?

[Mountain Relish]

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

[spicoli424]

Killler quiver im stoked with just two of your six skis

[MotoBeak]

Sorry, no pics. They're not too heavy, ok for shorter backcountry days, but a bit too much for longer tours.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Do you have any more specs of the skis, and do they come in a 18X?

[MotoBeak]

132-105-122 in the 192, 27m radius. They will also come in 184. They have wood sidewalls. Time will tell for durability, but they look solid.

[ZomblibulaX]

Mine are on order. Want to ski NOW!

[gregL]

So these have more pronounced rocker than the LPR 115's? And turn easier?

[MotoBeak]

So these have more pronounced rocker than the LPR 115's? And turn easier?

Just a little bit less pronounced rocker than the LP 115. Comparing the 192 in the LP 105 to the 184 in the LP 115, you get a more stable ride with easier turning. Perfect.

[bradski530]

Thanks for the review. Sounds like a good daily driver.

In a few sentences how would you describe the 184 LPR 115?

[gregL]

In a few sentences how would you describe the 184 LPR 115?

The 184 LPR 115 is my regular lift-served ski when there's 6 inches or more of fresh, I'm 5'8" 165. It's super stable at speed, likes GS or SG radius turns, and is quite good on hard snow due to both torsional rigidity and dampness. In good quality deep snow it will turn fairly quickly by pivoting, but in heavier snow and tight trees they can be a handful, requiring a two-legged hop technique to bring them around. I was hoping for a bit smaller radius next year (done) and a bit more rocker (not further back than 45cm, but more rise) as they are almost flat and tend to go through sharp spines or creekbed transitions rather than over. If you ski mostly open CO terrrain and like speed you'll probably love 'em.

[Hypnotoad]

anybody know the weight on these things (192)? Would putting dukes on them be idiotic?
Edit: nevermind...sorta... read the response above, but if anyone had the exact specs for weight it'd be rad.

[Mustonen]

^^^ I don't know the answer to your question, but I can assure you the question itself is idiotic.

Easily as stable as the XXL, and not too far off the RC112. When I'm really hauling on the 112 I feel like I can change direction when I have to, but the 105 was real easy to manage going stupid fast.

Can you clarify this comparison? I'm taking a hard look at both of these skis (provided I can still find a pair of rc112s). Legend 105 <=> RC112 in high-speed direction changing and shutdowns?

Also: crud busting, slashing, edgehold?

[tahoe_rider]

Pro Rider 105 + a Duke may be a bit heavy. I have a Pivot 18 mounted on mine and they are not something that I would consider a light set up.

Mustonen, I have had both of your above mentioned skis. The best way I can compare the 105 is if the XXL and the 115 had a baby. They have the ability to eat through crud much like the XXL could but it has the ease of direction change that the 115 does. When it comes to stability at speed the 105 kills it. The fact that it has the ability to absolutely rail turn and then shut it down it tight situations is awesome. The new PR 105 is IMO the best Pro they have built I absolutely love the versatility of this ski.

Ive been skiing mine since early Feb and have yet to see any issues with the wood sidewalls as well.

[Hypnotoad]

Is it that obviously stupid of a question? I have dukes on 190 bibby's right now but wouldn't mind switching back to alpine clamps on those and put the dukes on something a little skinnier. Something 105 with rocker seems like a decent candidate. I see dukes on gotamas, katanas,s7 and tons of other heavy ass skis all the time, so I was just wondering if these are so prohibitively heavy that touring with them would be completely pointless, even for someone used to touring on a 10lb pair of skis with dukes.
*EDIT: Tahoe posted as I was typing, man this thread is making me look like an asshole.

[Mustonen]

Is it that obviously stupid of a question? I have dukes on 190 bibby's right now but wouldn't mind switching back to alpine clamps on those and put the dukes on something a little skinnier. Something 105 with rocker seems like a decent candidate. I see dukes on gotamas, katanas,s7 and tons of other heavy ass skis all the time, so I was just wondering if these are so prohibitively heavy that touring with them would be completely pointless, even for someone used to touring on a 10lb pair of skis with dukes.
*EDIT: Tahoe posted as I was typing, man this thread is making me look like an asshole.

It's summer. We're all assholes this time of year. But yeah, that 2nd question is retarded. What's idiotic about a heavy touring setup? What's idiotic about putting a heavy binding on a light ski, or a light binding on a heavy ski? Without the context of what you're trying to accomplish or what you're planning on using them for, the question doesn't make any damn sense.

[bradski530]

For reference, my 184 LPR 115s weigh in at ~14.2 lbs with Axls, which weigh about 4 lbs, so that means that the 184 115 is around 10 lbs. With a similar construction, the 192 LPR 105 will probably weigh a little bit more than my 184 115s.

The 192 LPR 105 with dukes would be heavy, but if all you're looking to do is a little lift accessed skinning and you're strong and in good shape, you could get away with this bomber setup.

[crashidy]

i have a day on the 105s in lake louise, andi have to agree with tahoe rider's description of the 194xxl and 184 pro 115 having a baby. get on plane easy, turns easy but can go mach chicken over anything. they are outstanding and i will be trying to figure out how to make room. may be selling my 186 pros for these and ditching my chopsticks also. can never justify getting rid of the xxl.

[bluesbrother49]

Another Review:
Me: 6'2 200lbs, former racer from Alaska
Other Dynastars: Big Dump, LP 115, LP XXL: 194, Original LP 194
Review: This is the best ski I have been on as a "daily driver" ever. It is definitely the best d-nasty since the original LP. Super stable, charger, but the early rise allows you to: a. plane powder better than the LP and XXL b. Make quick "shut-down" turns better than the XXL.

I would say the xxl + 115= 105 is right on, but even more so with the Big Dump+115= 105 flex and turn feel. The 115 is a great powder ski, but is a little soft in the tip for me as a everyday charger. I spent more time on the Big Dump and that ski still blows me away the more I ski it. It took me a while to get used to how i needed to ski hard all the time and just trust how fast i could go with it. The 105 in a 192 was so at home for me from the first turn. I have also skied the 184 and i can tell you that it is basically the same ski, flex, stiffness, etc as the 192. Would not be a bad "heavy" sidecountry setup. For long tours it would probably be a bit much. This ski really does have a real tail, as in, don't get backseat or it will GO.

Hope to get some footage up soon of ripping on the 105 this spring at Squaw.

[Jim S]

I was supposed to demo these today but I got stood up or left for a better looking man by the Dynastar rep.


I got the boys in the crime lab working on this. They are working in shifts.

[LeeC]

I know its a stupid question, but how do these compare to 09-10 obsethed. I am guessing stiffer?? They are both 105 waisted, but don't know the particulars.
I would not say I am a charger, but I can get down just about anything decent

[FreakofSnow]

I'm a huge fan of my 186 Legend Pro's, ski them most every day at Snowbowl. The only things they don't really excel in are floating in the pow(tip dive) and in the trees can be a little tough or at least tiring.

The 105 sounds great. How does it float and do in the tighter trees? Thanks for the reviews!

[Mofro261]

this sounds like the ski I want/need for everyday in bounds.

[MarcusBrody]

Is this the 105 Legend Pro Rider we're discussing here? Or is there a separate 105 Legend (non-Pro Rider). Sounds like and interesting ski and it's good to see Dynastar getting back to making something like the models that were loved on here.