EpicSki  ›  The Barking Bear Forums  ›  Skiing Forums  ›  Ski Gear Discussion  ›  Dynastar Legend Sultan 80 vs. Sultan 85
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

Dynastar Legend Sultan 80 vs. Sultan 85

#1
Rating: 0
9/22/09 at 12:45pm
  • Joined: September 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Post Count: 8
Hi everybody.  Been lurking here for a while, but my first time posting.

I'm planning on picking up a new set of skis this winter, and having some trouble deciding between these two.  I'm replacing/augmenting my current skis, which are 2002 Dynastar Agyl Sup's.  (170 length, 72mm waist).

Here are the relevant facts:
  • I'm 5'11", 165 lbs.
  • I'm an upper-intermediate/advanced skier, probably level 7
  • I live in Detroit, so my everyday ski spot is a tiny ant hill, but we do tend to have a decent amount of fresh snow, especially up north.
  • I plan to get over into the Adirondacks a few times this season (Gore/Whiteface) and hoping to get out west once or twice (Tahoe and/or Utah).
  • Due to my location, demo days are a little hard to come by

After doing quite a bit of research and reading, I've narrowed it down to the Sultan 80 or 85.  I'm leaning toward the 80, because the narrower waist and shorter radius seem better suited to where I'll be doing 80% of my skiing, but still seem wide enough for when I get out into real mountains and bigger snow dumps.  On the other hand, I'd hate to buy new skis only to find they're not quite wide enough to excel out west, and I can still use the Agyls for skiing groomers here in Michigan.

I know both of these models are new for 2009/2010, so I don't know if anybody has had the chance to demo them.  But if you have, what are your thoughts?

Thanks in advance!
Export to Wiki
#2
Rating: 0
9/22/09 at 4:03pm
  • Joined: February 2008
  • Post Count: 46
Welcome to epic.

I haven't been on either yet, but I know enough to point out what appears to be a flaw in your analysis.  The skis really aren't the same -- the differences between the 80 and 85 are much greater than just width.  For example, the 80 has less (no?) metal.  Dynastar, for example, classifies the 85 as going from intermediate up to advances/expert skiers, where the skill level for the 80 only goes up to intermediate.  (Not their words, but you get the point.)

If you copy the following into the search box at the top of the page, you will come up with a number of reviews:  "sultan 85"

If you copy the following into the search box at the top of the page, you will come up with fewer reviews, but you will get a couple of threads that reference them both: "sultan 80" and "sultan 85" 

If you really are a level 7, the 85 is probably the better bet for you, assuming that this is the right ski for you at all, which is neither apparently correct or incorrect based on your description. 

Hope this helps. 

 

Smiles

Export to Wiki
#3
Rating: 0
9/22/09 at 8:11pm
  • Joined: September 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Post Count: 8
That's something I had seen, too.  From what I can tell, the 85 is probably closer to my skill level, but I wasn't sure about the width. I will be spending a good portion of my time on hardpack, after all.  I ended up finding a bunch of staff reviews for the 85 on Skis.com, and the made me feel a lot better about the size. They're headquartered here in Michigan and the skis were demoed on a hardpack day in Northern Michigan, where I often ski.  According to the reviewers, the 85 performed very well on the hardpack, and was a good choice for skiers of my type and ability.
Still, hoping I can make it to a demo day early this season to try them out before I buy.
Export to Wiki
#4
Rating: 0
9/24/09 at 1:52am
  • Joined: September 2009
  • Post Count: 5
I would say go with 187 Legend Pro XXL. Really a good ski for out West but still extremely versatile and able to lay trenches on groomers.

The Sultans seem just stupid sticks. I can't understand people getting this type of skis. The 80mm-waisted ski will not have the same performance on the groomed as a true race/carving ski but it will be a total misery in the off-piste soft snow conditions.

If you are afraid of the XXL's be not, they are really easy to ski and very enjoyable and you are going to be really surprised at how much better you''ll ski after a season on these.


Good Luck
Export to Wiki
#5
Rating: 0
9/24/09 at 4:01pm
  • Joined: August 2006
  • Location: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
  • Post Count: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by justajong View Post

I would say go with 187 Legend Pro XXL. Really a good ski for out West but still extremely versatile and able to lay trenches on groomers.

The Sultans seem just stupid sticks. I can't understand people getting this type of skis. The 80mm-waisted ski will not have the same performance on the groomed as a true race/carving ski but it will be a total misery in the off-piste soft snow conditions.

If you are afraid of the XXL's be not, they are really easy to ski and very enjoyable and you are going to be really surprised at how much better you''ll ski after a season on these.


Good Luck

He obviously has no need for a 109mm ski...maybe you should read before you post.
Export to Wiki
#6
Rating: 0
9/26/09 at 8:23pm
  • Joined: March 2004
  • Location: Virginia
  • Post Count: 3,640
 Get the 85.  Even though it's wider, it has a very nice feel on groomed snow -- in fact, I'd say they ski narrower than they measure on hardpack.  I demoed a pair last spring, and ordered some as soon as they were on the price list.  Very nice ski, a real standout in the 80-90mm waist range.  I am really looking forward to making them my go-to ski for the upcoming season.  That particular width ski is extremely versatile.  Though I have much narrower and much wider skis in my quiver, an 85mm metal ski like the Sultan really has the ability to cover a wide range.
Export to Wiki
#7
Rating: 0
9/27/09 at 7:02pm
  • Joined: September 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Post Count: 8
Thanks skier219, that's just the sort of information I was looking for.  The more I read and hear, the more it sounds like the Sultan 85 is going to be perfect for me.  85mm is not that wide anymore, and a 16 meter radius is not much bigger than a lot of on-piste carving skis.
Export to Wiki
#8
Rating: 0
9/28/09 at 12:59pm
  • Joined: February 2003
  • Location: Berkeley, CA
  • Post Count: 155
i say go with the 85. 85-90 mm skis are so versatile. I bought head 78's last season, but i think i was a year or 2 behind. they are great, but for big mountains a little more width is a lot more comfortable. they'll carve just fine.
Export to Wiki
#9
Rating: 0
9/28/09 at 3:31pm
  • Joined: August 2006
  • Location: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
  • Post Count: 94
85mm gives you incentive to explore off-piste a little more.  Eventually you'll end up with 100+mm ski's...happens to everyone.
Export to Wiki
#10
Rating: 0
10/24/09 at 5:29pm
  • Joined: October 2009
  • Post Count: 7
I'm sort of hijacking this post , but I am thinking about the Sultan 85's as well and will be skiing on the east coast

I'm also considering the Elan 777's

Any info is appreciated!

Thanks,

Patrick
Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread