or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Help w Women's Ski Purchase - Dynastar Excl. Legend v. Head Wild Thang
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help w Women's Ski Purchase - Dynastar Excl. Legend v. Head Wild Thang

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Hello all -

I am a confirmed lurker for the past year and now seek everyone's great advice!

I have been looking to buy a new pair of skis to replace my ancient K2-Threes (178cm). I am 5'9", about 185 lb (sounds big but 75 lbs lighter than last year!!), athletic. Ski mainly in VT with a trip to Tahoe or Western Austria thrown in once a year. Ski mainly steeps (blacks, some blues), groomed and soft bumps (when we have them in VT). Fairly fast but controlled. Good skiier but cautious in bumps / off trail. Looking to improve in the trees and bumps this year.

I am looking for a solid all mountain ski that I will not "outgrow".

I have been looking at the Dynastar Exclusive Legend and the Head Wild Thang. Any thoughts on comparisons or performance of either.

Also, suggestions on length? The sales guys were suggesting either 158 or 163/65, depending on the shop. The 158s sound super short but they keep saying it would be ok.

post #2 of 12
No thoughts but how'd you do it? WW? Good for you!
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
Yep - WW, Core Program and a lot of running! Still have about 25 to go but am closer than I was! Thanks, D
post #4 of 12
i've had lots of luck putting women on the exclusive legend in 172 if they were skiing the conditions you described remember the freeride skis are not carvers
post #5 of 12

Two really good choices

I think both of those are great choices. Have you demo'd either or anything similar. My 2 cents would be that the Exclusive would be a better choice if you were primarily a Western soft-snow skier but that the Wild Thang (boy, I dislike their naming scheme this year) is a better choice for what you describe (primarily eastern skiing with trips into softer snow). Head also gets some bonus points for the adjustability of the Railflex system.

As far as size, I don't agree with the 158 for these two skis, they aren't stiff carving skis. I imagine that most people would recommend the 165, I am actually torn between that vs. the 170 length. If possible, I suggest you demo both lengths and see what you like.

The shorter length would be quicker in turns (including trees and bumps), but a little more length would give you more float and better stability at speed. Not sure how to balance the importance of those two, which is the reason you should demo.
post #6 of 12
Both are great skis. The Wild Thang is based off of the superb iM72 (which has really been an eye-opener, as the performance seems to exceed all expectations, based on its extremely affordable price). According to Head, they mill out the center of the ski, making for a softer flex underfoot for the typically lighter woman, yet retain the tip and tail of the iM72, keeping the lateral stiffness and tip/tail engagement characteristics of the men's ski.

The Legend will be slower edge-to-edge and better in crud and is a very nice ski too. Super smooth-I was very impressed with it. Not the most powerful ski, but trademark Dynastar. It would do practically anything asked of it. For hardpack mostly, I would say get the narrower ski of the two (Wild Thang). The Legend in Men's trim is very easy to ski as well and is a fun carver, but the iM72 will be a little more zippy. 158 sounds a little short for a do-it-all ski, but if you are almost always on hardpack, it may be OK. Still, I am 5 foot 9, 150lbs, and wouldn't want my primary ski to be less than 165, even for East Coast conditions. I find that if I ski a 160-ish ski, I get tired after a few hours, since I can't really relax on them in big arcs the same way I can on a 165. And, most 165's really gain much more in stability in big arcs than they give up to 160's in rebound and edge-to-edge quickness. The only time I feel that I am on too long of a ski in 165 is with a full race slalom, anything else I prefer to ski that length in the conditions you describe.

Keep in mind that I haven't skied either in Ladies trim, so my input is based on how the Men's versions ski. At your target weight, you could still easily ski the Mens version of either of these. Have you considered that? Any particular reason why you are leaning toward the ladies models? Most women's skis seem to be optimized for the 120-130lb range, according to the manufacturers. Unless you aren't very aggressive at all, you should at least try to demo a mens version (same day, immediately after trying the ladies ski would be best). It will give you a great comparison.
post #7 of 12

Point system for me. Has worked well but slipping now.
post #8 of 12
Can't say too much about the Dynastars. My wife and I have both skied Dynastars in the past, but none of the newer models. Bought the wife a new pair of Heads last year, and she has been very happy with them. Came back from the first run on them with a big smile on her face, and has never looked back. Don't even think about anything shorter than the 163 for an all mountain ski.
post #9 of 12
Welcome. I recently moved to Colorado and I thought my Volkl supersports were kind of stiff in the soft stuff. To Colorado skiers this is pre-season but these would be powder days in Maine. I wanted something softer and floatier, slightly wider. I ended up with the Dynastar Exclusive Legend in a 152. I am 5'2". I am an intermediate skier. I skied blues and blacks in the east. I put a look lifter binding on it.

First of all I really like the construction of the ski. I find it very comfortable to ski on-- quads don't ache, no pains all day-- an advil free ski even early season. They turn easily and they have worked well in bumpy snow (it is softer here). Today the snow was packed down more and they carved beautifully. It is hard to fall in these skis even when you do something stupid. They float nicely over fresh snow.

This weekend I demoed a few skis. I was especially interested in the Lotta Luv. It felt a bit softer and I believe it is wider in the front. Very good in the fresh snow that was falling but to me it didn't feel as precise or comfortable as the Dynastar. I felt like my legs had to work harder. (I won't go into which graphics I prefer) I also think it wasn't as comfortable without any lifter in the binding or the ski. That might be a personal thing to me. Probably this ski would not be an all around east coast ski but it could be an all around ski in the Rockies I think. I haven't tried the Head ski so no comment there.

I think if you can demo the Exclusive Legend (or buy it with a return guarantee as I did at the ski show here) it is worth trying. It has no rods or rails or mod monics or gadgets like most of the other skis I have had, but something about its construction makes it a very ride even without integrated bindings.
post #10 of 12
The Burnin' Luv by K2 may also be a ski worth considering. A little narrower than the Wild Thang, and just as good. I was impressed by the K2 ladies skis, although they were the only ladies models I was able to try!
post #11 of 12
Thread Starter 
Q for some of you you mentioned the Head - I was "convinced" by the sales guys that the Head would float enough in the bumps and trees bc the waist is narrower than the Legend. Thoughts? Thank you so much to all for responding.
post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
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 › Help w Women's Ski Purchase - Dynastar Excl. Legend v. Head Wild Thang