EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Ski Canada reviews Legend 8000
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Canada reviews Legend 8000

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
Interesting review by Ski Canada Magazine. They give "editor's choice" to: Elan M-777; Metron M:B5; Head IM 75; K2 Recon; Rossi B2; and Volant Genesis, but not to the 8000. They skied the following length: Men 184; women, 178. Here is their site: http://travel.canoe.ca/SkiCanadaProductTests/home.html

These skis split tester opinion down the middle. Although some found them light and nimble enough for short turns, the majority got better results with speed and longer turns. This is a solid backside cruiser that requires some skill to master. Some of the bigger testers, men and women, praised the stable cruising performance and predictable ride, even calling it versatile and forgiving. Others had to work too hard and recommended the 8000 for heavier, accomplished skiers. In the end, there was no consensus. This is a prime xample of a ski that chilled some skiers and thrilled others. You must take it for a ride yourself.
post #2 of 21

Flawed Review, IMO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billiam
.....They skied the following length: Men 184; women, 178. Here is their site: http://travel.canoe.ca/SkiCanadaProductTests/home.html
.....
Others had to work too hard and recommended the 8000 for heavier, accomplished skiers. In the end, there was no consensus. This is a prime xample of a ski that chilled some skiers and thrilled others. You must take it for a ride yourself.
This review is very interesting. Esp the part that this ski is recommended for "heavier, accomplished skiers." I'm advanced, but no expert, and I only weigh 150 lbs at 5'9". One big difference between my experience and the testers, IMO, is the length at which they skied the 8000. I ski a 165cm, they went MUCH longer. 184cm for the men, IMO, is just too long unless skiing in powder. And, 178cm for the women is still too long unless you are a big person.

I'm not sure why they didn't test shorter 8000s. If you check out their reviews of the Editor's Choice picks, they test shorter skis. For example, the men who tested the Head Monster i.M 75 CHIP tested 170 and 177; and the women tested 163 and 170. In the K2 Apache Recon, the men test a 174 and the women a 167. These are some pretty dramatic differences in length. Unfair comparison, IMO. Those testers who were chilly on the 8000 may have loved it at 165cm or 172cm. I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't like the 8000 in 184cm.

The one thing that I do agree with is that "you must take it for a ride yourself." Of course, one should do that with any ski before they buy it, IMO.
post #3 of 21
They test what is supplied.
post #4 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
They test what is supplied.
Then Dynastar blew it, IMO.
post #5 of 21
I'm sure Dynastar gave them what it thought best for Fernie's conditions.

the "go shorter" is the new fad. it allows lesser skiers to be on eqpt that is more advanced than they are.

I'm not having any of it. I keep out of the discussions when someone suggests that a ski that comes in 184 cm size for biggest folks should be skied in a 160. great. just don't expect to get your money's worth out of the ski.

I find Ski Canada's reviews to be refreshingly honest and vastly more valuable than Ski or Skiing reviews. Strangely, they also have been historically consistent with my own findings on most of the same skis when I've demo'd them.
post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
I'm sure Dynastar gave them what it thought best for Fernie's conditions.

the "go shorter" is the new fad. it allows lesser skiers to be on eqpt that is more advanced than they are.

I'm not having any of it. I keep out of the discussions when someone suggests that a ski that comes in 184 cm size for biggest folks should be skied in a 160. great. just don't expect to get your money's worth out of the ski.

I find Ski Canada's reviews to be refreshingly honest and vastly more valuable than Ski or Skiing reviews. Strangely, they also have been historically consistent with my own findings on most of the same skis when I've demo'd them.
You make some very interesting points. To be honest, I hadn't looked at it that way, and I'm sure there is a great deal of truth to what you are saying. But, from a comparison standpoint when testing, do you think that the size issue between two or more skis (i.e., the 8000 and the Recon or the Head) matters? Had the testers been in longer Head's or Recons, might they have had a similar experience as with the 8000s? Do they take this into consideration when preparing the reviews? Or are the skiers experienced enough to know the performance of a ski regardless of size?
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Or are the skiers experienced enough to know the performance of a ski regardless of size?
The ski Canada testers have usually got some pretty credentials behind them.
As for length, you're more apt to find someone 5'8" and 140#'s on 185's instead of 165's at Fernie.
Also note the disclaimer in the introduction regarding conditions - these are off-piste/powder skis and Fernie's usual off-piste/powder wasn't available. The intro noted that, due to these conditions, the wider and straighter skis didn't fare as well as the skis with narrower waists and more sidecut.
B2 seems to be a favorite in any test and of people who own them, the Recon/Metron/Volant have more generous sidecut's and the M777 is way stiffer than the 8000 - all have characteristics which would make them more appealing in the conditions they had. I suspect the 8000 would have scored higher if normal Fernie conditions were there. My take, anyway.
post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffW
The ski Canada testers have usually got some pretty credentials behind them.
As for length, you're more apt to find someone 5'8" and 140#'s on 185's instead of 165's at Fernie.
Also note the disclaimer in the introduction regarding conditions - these are off-piste/powder skis and Fernie's usual off-piste/powder wasn't available. The intro noted that, due to these conditions, the wider and straighter skis didn't fare as well as the skis with narrower waists and more sidecut.
B2 seems to be a favorite in any test and of people who own them, the Recon/Metron/Volant have more generous sidecut's and the M777 is way stiffer than the 8000 - all have characteristics which would make them more appealing in the conditions they had. I suspect the 8000 would have scored higher if normal Fernie conditions were there. My take, anyway.
Thanks for the insight. I should have read the entire article that went with the review, but have been hurrying today to leave icy cold NH for moderately warm south Florida.
post #9 of 21
Thread Starter 
Gonzostrike: I totally am with you on your feeling that people are being moved into shorter and shorter lengths because that is the "trend". I feel more comfortable on longer skis when I go over about 25 mph, espcially on hardpack.

I was not sure whether the 178 or the 184 was the length to demo this ski in. I am still unsure.
post #10 of 21
Peter Kelty recommends "ski it shorter than the ego suggests". Length is a function of intended use and terrain as well as skill and size. I bought the 172 (I am 5' 11", 165lb) mainly for powder and soft snow days in the trees and bumps at Colorado front range ski areas like Mary Jane. I am very happy I did. They are very quick turning and float well enough for CO conditions. If I were mainly skiing big open bowls or just groomers for instance I might have opted for a longer length. The ski also holds and carves well on packed groomers at this length but does take a few runs to get dialed in. I can see why some people might not like it at first. I first thought I bought it to short. I need to post a review after I get a couple more days on them.
post #11 of 21
rcahill, that's the SENSIBLE counter to my point. if someone's reading from Keelty's site then I can shut up... if they listen to Peter.

it's hard to call sometimes. in some cases it's pretty obvious that size is an ego issue. in others, it's not.

my point is that LOTS of people are going shorter as a result of ski shop employees selling UP and selling a shorter version of a higher performance ski as a way to appease the customer's ego AND increase profits.

if you think I"m full of shyte, say so.
post #12 of 21
I don't think that up selling needs to go along with the shorty trend.

Shorty skiis obsolete most peoples equipment. Buying in to the notion that the shortest skiis are the best guarantees that you will want new skiis.

The sale is easy once the customer is convinced his longer stuff is junk.
post #13 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billiam
Gonzostrike: I totally am with you on your feeling that people are being moved into shorter and shorter lengths because that is the "trend". I feel more comfortable on longer skis when I go over about 25 mph, espcially on hardpack.

I was not sure whether the 178 or the 184 was the length to demo this ski in. I am still unsure.
if you demo the 178, you'll love it and buy it in that size, only to wish a few weeks later you had gotten the 184.

try the 184. if it's too much, then get/try the 178.
post #14 of 21
Thread Starter 
When do I "need" the 184 over the 178? I think it is in a cirque or bowl with cut-up powder or heavy powder. Clearly the shorter length makes trees and bumps easier. But length makes speed and GS-like turns in the previously mentioned bowl easier. Agree?

I demoed a number of skis last year (but not the 8000) and found I liked the 180-185 length, except in something over 90 mm underfoot, then 175 is good. I have been skiing 195 cm X-Screams since 1997.
post #15 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
rcahill, that's the SENSIBLE counter to my point. if someone's reading from Keelty's site then I can shut up... if they listen to Peter.

it's hard to call sometimes. in some cases it's pretty obvious that size is an ego issue. in others, it's not.

my point is that LOTS of people are going shorter as a result of ski shop employees selling UP and selling a shorter version of a higher performance ski as a way to appease the customer's ego AND increase profits.

if you think I"m full of shyte, say so.
Gonzo I agree. Buying a more expensive but shorter ski to appease one's ego probably happens way to much. I often see 1 week a year skiers on high performance (as well as intermediate level) skis way too short for their size that they aren't skiing all that well. I think people tend to over do trends without fully thinking it through, look at all the ridiculous Atkins diet trends for example. Do you really want a hamburger between 2 pieces of lettuce instead of a bun? I think another case where size downsizing a performance ski does makes sense is age. I saw some excellent older 60+ skiers on short GS skis ripping up the groomers at Copper earlier this year (they probably raced at some point or have just been skiing for ever). In their case it made sense to have a shorter performance ski. Their skill was still there but their strength couldn't have been on par with a 20 year old. As I near 50 with 2 knee surgeries (just maintenance after years of wear and tear) I may go that route myself at some point if I haven't already. Years ago in my 20s, I skied skis too long for my size because that was the macho thing to do then and even the shops succumbed to the hype for long skis at the time and sold people skis too long. I still have friends my age that refuse to embrace any new technology and insist on skiing 80s style 205cm slalom skis in the bumps at Mary Jane. I don't know how they still do it but they still have fun. It's nice to have so many more options nowadays. It's just a matter of picking the right tool for the aplication and skill level and avoiding ego and hype.
post #16 of 21
thanks. and to be clear, I'm not against short skis -- I had a pair of 160cm Fischer WC SC last year... but those skis are designed to be skied short. similarly I wouldn't chastise anyone for skiing a 152cm Metron B:5, since the 172 is the largest in that ski.

I think a lot has to do with the ease with which people slide themselves up a notch when shopping, and most especially men... we men tend to feel unspoken competition when we discuss any activity we enjoy, and most folks don't want to seem unskilled or without the latest knowledge. when I used to sell ski gear at Ski Center in Wash DC -- nearly 20 years ago now! : -- I used to try to get more precise information that didn't really directly bear on "beginner/intermediate/advanced/expert" ...things like turn style/shape, what types of mogul lines one chooses, what one likes about advanced terrain, etc.

it's too easy for the average Joe or Jane to rate him/herself by the ratings of the runs he/she skis. nobody's there to tell Joe or Jane that there's a huge range of ways to make it down a ski run, and only the top of that range is reserved for "experts" no matter whether the whole run is rated as "expert"

anyway, I just wanted to clarify that rather unclear point with this most recent murky exposition.
post #17 of 21
All this talk about egos and length. Sorry I opened that testosterone box with an earlier post. All I was getting at was whether the comparison between the 184cm 8000 to the shorter Heads and Recon was fair
post #18 of 21
oh NOW you ask the EASY question!
post #19 of 21
Sorry what question? Oh, now I remember. I have the Dynstar 8000 at 172cm and the K2 XP at 174cm. The lengths compare favorably as far as performance is concerned. A shop employee told me the Recon is a little softer than the XP but I have also heard from others that it is not. (K2 did change the tip somewhat) Anyone know for sure? Anyway in my experience the 8000 is lighter, quicker turning, floats better, and is better in trees and bumps than the XP. Stability is about the same at speed but the XP may be better in heavy crud. The K2 is more relaxing and predictable while the 8000 is more lively. Both are great skis, It is a matter ot taste which one is better. I did not like the IM75 for bumps and trees in the 170cm I demoed but it was a very nice ski on groomers, maybe better than the other two I mentioned. (I have last years Head iXRCs for groomers that I love although this years iXRC 1100SW are even better) . I think comparing the 184cm 8000 to similiar but shorter skis was not an apples to apples comparison.
post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billiam
When do I "need" the 184 over the 178? I think it is in a cirque or bowl with cut-up powder or heavy powder. Clearly the shorter length makes trees and bumps easier. But length makes speed and GS-like turns in the previously mentioned bowl easier. Agree?

I demoed a number of skis last year (but not the 8000) and found I liked the 180-185 length, except in something over 90 mm underfoot, then 175 is good. I have been skiing 195 cm X-Screams since 1997.
I bought the 178's and have never looked back. I have 20 days on them in CO and UT and they are perfect for me at 6'1' and 200lbs. I bought them for tree skiing powder days. Are they the prefect choice for 30" of powder, no. They are a great all around ski for western skiing. I can't imageine why I would go longer with these skis. The obvious point here is that NO ski is great at everything and anyone deriding shorter skis in general is missing this point. The fact that many skis are specifically designed to be skiied shorter also negates some of the arguments here. I will likely buy a wider ski before next season for backcountry and BIG powder days but I love the 178's for 90% of the days I ski. I see no point in buying a ski longer than you need simply to avoid going "too short".
post #21 of 21
I just did a demo of the 8000 in a 172 this past week. Haven't been on a dynastar in years. I was really impressed with that ski. It is livlier then the K2 XP. and has more turn shaps then the XP. My big concern with the 8000 was the tip felt to light. I didn't have it in any real heavy crud but the littel crud I found tended to push the ski around. Other then that It was a fun ride. I liked it better in bumps the XP. For me the XP is a better fit. Since i have an orange jacket and Orange polor fleece and yellow/ Orange technica boots guess I should have gotten the 8000 to match up with my "uniform."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Ski Canada reviews Legend 8000