EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Current ski models comparable to an older (2007) Legend Pro?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Current ski models comparable to an older (2007) Legend Pro?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

Currently have an old pair of 178 cm Legend 8000's (will become my rock skis due to edge and base damage) and a 183 cm iM82 which will probably be my go-to normal ski for the PNW, for now.  Looking to add a wider ski which could be used for those potentially deeper days of off-piste, sidecountry, etc. and, if light enough, might toss some lightweight bindings on them for backcountry.


Me: 6'2", ~ 180 lbs body weight, advanced/expert

Preferences: prefer off-piste

Ski Locations: live and ski primarily in the PNW but travel  other places (Colorado, Alta, Alps).


Recently rented a number of older skis while skiing in the French Alps in mixed conditions to full-fledged and waist-high powder. The first pair of skis were some older Rossi GS-type of skis which were too unpredictable in the deeper snow.


Then I got on a  pair of (older?) Sultan 85's in a 178 cm length - much better!! That was a very fun ski which I could more readily attack the mixed and deeper snow off-piste. With a bit of even fore/aft weight distribution mixed with more leaning back in the deeper and/or unpredictable snowpack, they handled most of what I encountered. On the groomers at the end of the day, they were still a rewarding ski even though the softer shovel tended to get deflected a bit in crud. In reality, I could see how this could be a great quicker-turning replacement ski  for the Legend 8000's although the slightly softer character of the Sultan's 85, at least to me, might make it less effective on those really cruddy days. But I think the compromise might be worth it.


The next day was destined to be a day with lots more fresh snow and with powder of up to couple of feet or more in areas. I wanted to try the Sultan 85's in a longer length to see if the stability and added float that it might add would still be balanced nicely by the smaller turning radius as compared to the 8000's. They didn't have that size so I ended up with a pair of 186 cm Legend Pro (97 cm waist, 29 m turn radius). I had never skied something this wide and, to be honest, as I was riding up the lift I was starting to worry that I might have overstepped my abilities. My thoughts were particularly in consideration of the common-belief that the Legend Pros, especially in the longer lengths, were  monsters. But when I hit the snow, I started smiling. What a fun ski in the deep snow. I could do what I wanted and do it smoothly. I never felt  the ski was too wide nor too long. Even more surprising was that whenever I was forced onto the piste/groomers or in tight quarters I could very easily flex that ski into turn shapes that I would not have expected from a 29m radius ski. The flex pattern and limited sidecut was a really nice combination. Perhaps the hero snow gave me a less than realistic view of the capabilites of that ski, i.e. the Sultan 85's could have been just as fun, but I kind of doubt that.


I did try a blue-colored Solomon BBR 8.9 the next day because I thought that the Legend Pro's might have been a bit too soft for the skied out crud that I was expecting. It took me a bit of time to get used to that ski and it might have been a bit better when powering though crud and/or when whipping around on the groomers, but it didn't seem to have the smoothness of the Legend Pro's. The tail on the Solomon's seemed a bit unpredictable, at least to me. But I should have tried both on the same day to be sure.


So, I think I might like a pair of those Legend Pro's.  But here is the problem, it seems that ski was the 2007 model of the ski as pictured below. Does anyone  have any experience with that model and what a comparable replacement of it might be? All input would be greatly appreciated.





post #2 of 13
Legend Pro's are not known to be a soft flexing skis. At your weight/size, and ability level, 178cm seems to be too short? I have a pair of 178cm Legend 8000's, which are my rock skis now. For the PNW, take a look at K2 Hardside in a 181cm ski. Also check out Rossi S3. Might be too soft for you. But I love this ski for most days in the PNW. Only time it's not fun is in the heavy Cascade cement we get. In which case, I have a pair of XXL 187's. Really, there are just a ton of options in the 90-100mm waisted variety. If you have a chance to demo take a look at : Rossi Experience 98 Salomon Rocker2 92 Line Prophet 98 Dynastar Cham 97 Volkl Bridge Fischer Big Stix 98 Nordica Soul Rider
post #3 of 13

Legend Pro's were and still are a great ski. I see used 186's come up for sale every now and again and I have a pair of 194's if your interested.  Have you tried the Cham97?

post #4 of 13

The 2012 Legend Pro Rider 105 is not a current ski, but might be worth a try.  My impressions is they didn't sell that great, so perhaps there are still a few out there somewhere. 




I own a 2006 186cm Legend Pro Rider, which is similar to the 2007 model you tried but with a slightly different flex.  Last season, I grabbed a pair of 192cm Legend Pro Rider 105s.  Compared to the old ski, I felt that the 2012 Legend Pro Rider 105 was a nice update.  The softer shovel, early rise, and tapered tips made it a better soft snow ski, less tip dive and hooking.  Hard snow performance was almost as good as the old ski despite the changes.

post #5 of 13
Thread Starter 

Hi Toadman, yeah the Rossi Exp98 is one of the skis I want to try even though it has a bit more of a shape with shorter turn radius than the LP's. As for length, yeah I think I waiver between 178 and 188 cm for length and it is very dependent on the ski and my intent. With the move to rockers, I think I need to start looking at the longer end of that spectrum. Demoing of skis > 180 cm is usually difficult because shops and reps often don't bring such long ones for demos.

Thanks Shredhead. I think the 194's might be a bit long for me, though. Haven't tried the Cham 97'. I am a bit afraid that those may be more similar to the Solomon BBR due to the shape, but I want to try them nevertheless. I also want to try out the Legend 94's if I can.  I have seen the more recent models of the Legend Pro's around too, but it is always a crapshoot since they are hard to find to demo and the widths and flex patterns seem to change yearly. I guess one of the things I was looking for in responses was how the more recent models of the LP's compare.


Hoss- good info. Yeah, over the last 5 years or so Dynastar seems to have kept changing flex patterns. Why can't they leave a good thing alone.smile.gif For example, whatever happened to those Mythic Riders, for example.


Couple of questions for you:

1) Do you find the 105's wider width than the older ski as making it less versatile....or more versatile?

2) I noted that you went with even longer length (192 cm)  of the 105's vs the 2006 model. Do you feel the 105's ski shorter?

3) What is your height/width and do you wish you had gone a bit shorter?


Thanks all,


post #6 of 13

Originally Posted by BigNick View Post


Hoss- good info. Yeah, over the last 5 years or so Dynastar seems to have kept changing flex patterns. Why can't they leave a good thing alone.smile.gif For example, whatever happened to those Mythic Riders, for example.


Couple of questions for you:

1) Do you find the 105's wider width than the older ski as making it less versatile....or more versatile?

2) I noted that you went with even longer length (192 cm)  of the 105's vs the 2006 model. Do you feel the 105's ski shorter?

3) What is your height/width and do you wish you had gone a bit shorter?


Yeah, I'm definitely skiing my 2006 Pro Riders into the ground.  Such a good ski.


1) I feel that the 105 doesn't quite match the old skis precision and quickness when it comes to hard or boney conditions.  It also doesn't feel nearly as damp, but I think that has more to do with feel, not as much performance.  But despite these criticisms, it's really not that far off the old skis.  However, in soft snow conditions, I find the new skis are a lot more versatile.  They have a different character.  Instead of driving through everything, they float over the snow a lot more, which depending on your style, could be what you're looking for, or not.  For me, it gives me the option to surf over the terrain at a lot higher speeds, while maintaining a quiet, civilized ride.  If you prefer to feel your edges planted in the snow, this might not be your thing.  They also pivot better than the old ones in soft snow, improving maneuverability.


2) I believe the 192s are stiffer than shorter versions, that was my reason for selecting that length.  I do feel that they ski shorter with the early rise.  I really don't notice the extra length compared to my 186s.


3) My height, weight is 5'10" 190.  I never wished I had gone shorter.  Even at that length, they remain surprisingly maneuverable.  Just as you mentioned, it remains easy to work the ski and achieve turn shapes you would not expect.  But the ski is definitely at it's best in soft snow, staying in the fall line - preferably fast.

post #7 of 13

I think of models in current production the Kaestle MX series is the closest.


I have bought previous year model Legend Pro's a couple times, NOS, and they are solid skis for daily use here. The last model that was designed along the classic Legend Pro lines was the 2010 model, the copper brown and black with white lettering top sheet. It has a little more sidecut and slightly softer flex than the 2009 you have pictured in your op. This is a great ski and I see it available on line for $350 ish, though some stores are still asking more than that. I also ski the 2008 so have an idea of the evolution of the design. After 2010, the tip gets really soft and I doubt that the ski would have the same balance. When I first demoed the Legend Pro, I thought it felt like a synthesis of all the skis I have been on through the years.


While I wear out the last of Dynastar's 2010's, the Cham 97 will be completely dialed and be my next pair.

Edited by davluri - 2/28/13 at 8:07am
post #8 of 13
If you liked the Sultan 85s but wanted something a little wider, maybe a hair more stable in crud, try the Legend 94s if you can't find the right pair of LPs. Also, there are a few pairs of LPs, LP 105s, and/or XXLs on the TGR gear swap list view.
post #9 of 13
Thread Starter 

UPDATE and follow-up Questions:


I picked up a brand new pair, still in the wrapper, of the 11/12 Legend Pro 105 in a 184 cm length up at Crystal last weekend for $299 plus tax. They were getting rid of the overstocks from earlier years. I probably could have gone with the longer 192 based on comments I have read, but the shorter one may give me more versatility, ie. in trees and bumps. In reality, they didn't have the longer ones in stock, so it made my decision easier. smile.gif  I won't mount these until next ski season - they will probably be my deep PNW off-piste fresh and/or skied out/manky snow ski.


But WAIT, there's more. I'm, not done yet. smile.gif


I am thinking of trying to expand and/or revamp my quiver with  some other end-of-season deals to augment and/or replace existing skis in my quiver. So, your expert inputs would be greatly appreciated. Currently, I have:

a) 178 cm Legend 8000s - still skiable with a fresh grind and tune but a few dents in the edge/sidewall will make them more of my rock skis.

b) 183 cm iM82.s - still a good go-to ski for mixed conditions and stability in crud 50/50 piste, although not the quickest or lightest. This could be relegated to rock skis too eventually if my quiver gets updated.


For reference: fairly athletic 6'2" 180-185 lbs butt-naked (ski season). Ski pretty much everywhere except very steep double-black diamonds with really icy, VW-bug sized moguls- why would I if didn't have to?wink.gif



When I was in CO this winter with no fresh snow for  over a month, I got to experience prevalent hardpack and icy conditions which were the closest to the blue-ice of northern Michigan. I had my Legend 8000's, which didn't hold much at all, but it might have been the tune on them - I've realized that freshly sharpened edges  even on a non-carver ski could have helped immensely. Although I tend to stay off groomers, I have considered getting a pure carver/groomer ski for those days I have to ski groomers for whatever reasons and/or the conditions are icy/hardpack off-piste. I demoed a pair of Dynastar Speed Course Ti in 183 cm last week at Crystal when the conditions were fresh and cut-up medium-weight snow on top of icy/hardpack with lots of hard moguls.  I found these skis were amazingly damp and actually more stable in the manky deeper snow that I also encountered, even smoother than some 188 cm Experience 98's I tried. I was totally impressed by what the SC Ti could do even though I only had them for a couple of runs on the lower reaches of the mountain. But, they weren't as quick on the turns as I might have expected for a carver. Perhaps, the 177 cm might have been better for me, but then I might have lost the stability of the longer ski.


Has anyone in comparable weight/ability tried those two size of the Speed Course Ti that could guide me? If I make it up to Crystal tomorrow, I'll see if I can try the shorter length although the snow will be much deeper probably.


OTOH, perhaps I should just give up on the idea of such a carver/groomer ski for really hardpack/icy conditions, concentrate on the next category, and rent a carver next time I go some place with those conditions.


2) DAILY-DRIVER for mixed conditions and on- and off-piste:

I guess this is the meat-and-potatoes ski that I am looking for that might replace/augment my existing 8000's/iM82s. Same weekend, I demoed a pair of 181 cm K2 Sideshows which have some metal in them. I was originally thinking of making that ski (or the 188 cm length) a backcountry/touring ski. Surprisingly, I totally hated it for some reason. Last time I skied it in predominantly soft but shallow snow, I thought it was OK but a bit short. This time, it rattled me on the harder conditions; it almost felt like there was no dampening even with the metal. At times, I felt the base was high with no edge. Other times when I did get it on edge eventually, the stiffness seemed such that I couldn't feather things. Maybe I just like a softer, but damp ski. I then demoed a pair of the 188 cm Rossi Exp 98.. In the mixed conditions on- and off-piste, those were quite impressive. They didn't have alot of float even in the heavier snow but were quite consistent in the amount of float and stable in the manky snow. The dampening was MUCH better than on the K2's in all conditions but not quite as damped, surprisingly, as the Speed Course Ti th_dunno-1[1].gif They were fairly quick/responsive in turns and in moguls, particularly for their width and length, but not quite as much as I would have liked for a daily all-purpose driver. Wondering out loud, if the 180 cm may have been a better choice.


So.... here it is, I have also been reading all of the write-ups on Epicski and have thought about the Outland 87 as a good compromise ski that might give me the Legend 8000 feel with a bit more of the versatility of the Exp 98 but with quickness missing from it (as a reference, I kind of liked the quickness of the 178 cm Sultan 85's I tried in France back in Feb. but was worried about them being too unstable in PNW manky snow). I might try the Outlands 87, if still available as demos at Crystal. So, based on that prelude, here is my question:


What are the pluses/minuses of the Exp-series (88 and 98) versus the Outland (87) in their appropriate lengths for me?  If I can only demo one size in each of the two series and am looking for a daily driver, should I demo:

Outland 87 in 178 or 184

Exp (88/98) in 178/180  or 186/188?


Am I looking at the wrong kind of ski?


3) Also, still looking for a more lightweight ski for a one-ski quiver for PNNW backcountry - set up solely with Dynafits speed radicals.

Am also considering setting up such a new ski with Dynalook plates for dual duty - Dynafit for BC and Look-type binding for resort. Such a softer flex ski in 100-110 mm could be useful in the drier and lighter deep snows of Utah and CO and still be good for PNW backcountry and/or those rare "light" snow dumps we have.



i) Coombacks (181 cm or 188cm?) - good for deeper snow, but not will hold their own on the consolidated snow in the spring. A very versatile ski, but when I tried the 181 cm (I'm 6'2", 180-185 butt-naked) on a resort found they rode kind of short and floppy. Might have needed the 188, but the 181 might be good for pure deeper soft snow off-piste and bc/touring. By the way, each of the respective lengths are actually longer than equivalent lengths in other manufacturer skis.


ii) Cham 107 High Mountain (184 or 190 cm). These have gotten very mixed reviews, but I am still intrigued since they are lightweight and are Dynastar (love their dampening).  I did demo the Cham 97 at Alpental (184 length??, don't recall) for couple of runs, but did not like them for some reason. I could never get dialed in - they were either totally on or off when edging with no real feathering, maybe it was me or the tune. But, I have read that the 107 is different. May try to demo the Cham 107 at Crystal tomorrow. The HM should just be a bit softer flexing and lighter/less damp.


iii) Any others?


Thanks for all of your inputs.




post #10 of 13

Nick-  Just parenthetically, people who ski the Legend Pro in 190+ lengths, don;t typically ask for ski advice here-  its a card-carrying superhero ski :-)

post #11 of 13
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Nick-  Just parenthetically, people who ski the Legend Pro in 190+ lengths, don;t typically ask for ski advice here-  its a card-carrying superhero ski :-)

But he purchased 184's, so he isn't in the super gnar camp yetwink.gif

post #12 of 13
Thread Starter 

Funny guy that Alex, isn't he. roflmao.gif


Yeah, if I had purchased the 190's of the LPR 105, I probably wouldn't even be on this forum. I'd then only hang out with the REAL skier's on TGR. wink.gif Actually, that's not true, for my height and weight, I would be required to ski 200+'s to be allowed on that forum. Where can I get those?smile.gif



post #13 of 13

great skis, those 105s. My daily drivers are those in a 192. In comparison to the old lpr 186s, they are more or less the same ski on hardpack, but are a lot better going really fast on softer snow. No tip dive for me, mounted at -1cm from the line, at 176cm/90kg.


You'll love them!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Current ski models comparable to an older (2007) Legend Pro?